Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2007: The Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement signed on 7 September 2007, with particular reference to:

(a)

the ramifications of the agreement with respect to global and regional security;

(b)

the risk that Australian uranium would be exported from the Russian Federation (Russia) to third states, contrary to agreements;

(c)

the 2005 Russian deal to sell uranium to Iran to fuel the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant, in spite of widespread fears about Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program;

(d)

the implications of the agreement for the sale of nuclear fuel to India;

(e)

the extent to which the supply of Australian uranium would enable Russia to increase its export of nuclear material;

(f)

the weakness of the rule of law, including corporate law, in Russia;

(g)

the ability to verify Russia’s compliance with any agreed safeguards noting, in particular, the European Parliament’s resolution of 10 May 2007 on the European Union-Russia Summit which expressed concern about, inter alia:

(i)

Russia’s lack of respect for human rights, democracy, freedom of expression, and the rights of civil society and individuals to challenge authorities and hold them accountable for their actions,

(ii)

the use of force by Russian authorities against peaceful anti-government demonstration and reports of the use of torture in prisons, and

(iii)

the restriction of democratic freedoms in the run-up to Duma elections in December 2007 and presidential elections in March 2008; and

(h)

any related matters.

This motion relates to the Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement signed on 7 September 2007. I am moving this because I am somewhat concerned that last week I moved for this matter to be referred under the JSCOT process—the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—and the Senate voted it down. I am now moving that it go to the Senate committee because I think that this needs considerable examination and consideration. I would appreciate some explanation from the government because, according to the explanatory notes that are on the government website:

The Agreement will come into force when each country has completed its domestic ratification processes, likely to be in the second half of 2008 at the earliest. In Australia the process involves parliamentary and public scrutiny including consideration of the Agreement by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT).

I would appreciate some clarification from the government that this particular agreement for the sale of Australian uranium to Russia is going to be assessed under the JSCOT process, as the explanatory notes seem to suggest. I can only assume, if that is the case, that it will be examined under that process and that the reason that the government opposed my reference was that it cited, in particular, a need for consideration to be given in relation not only to the strategic and security issues pertaining to the Australia-Russia uranium agreement but also to human rights; the rule of law; the ability to verify Russia’s compliance; the issue of the retreat from democracy, freedom of expression, the rights of civil society and the rights of individuals to challenge authorities; the use of force by Russian authorities against peaceful anti-government demonstrations; the reports of the use of torture in prisons and, as I indicated, the restriction of democratic freedoms in the run-up to the Duma elections in December 2007 and the presidential elections in March 2008.

This is a particularly significant day to be rising in the Senate to talk about an Australian agreement because I have only just learned that, overnight in Europe, Australia signed on to George Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It has received no publicity in Australia and, if it were not for the Times of India, Australians would still be ignorant of the fact that last night Australia did sign to be part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which is George Bush’s initiative, and which the Prime Minister has been an enthusiast—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How refreshing to hear you welcome another Howard government initiative, Senator Milne.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am appalled that Australia has signed up to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I have been a critic and an opponent ever since the Prime Minister went to the United States last year to start talking about it, because we all know that it is about selling more uranium into the global nuclear fuel cycle and taking back the waste. As we also know, the reason Canada has not signed up to the GNEP is that Canada does not want to become an international waste dump. The Prime Minister has now set Australia up in the GNEP and we have learned that from the Times of India. It seems as though we have to go to the nuclear states to find out what our own country is involved in around the world.

But I return to the matter of the reference to the committee of the Australia-Russia uranium agreement because I think this is critically important. Less than a week after President Putin left Australia to go home to Russia, we learn that Russia tested the world’s most powerful vacuum bomb last week. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald states:

“Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown its efficiency—

in inverted commas—

and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon,” Alexander Rushkin, deputy head of Russia’s armed force chief of staff, told Russia’s ... First Channel television.

“You will now see it in action, the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site.”

It goes on to say:

A vacuum bomb or fuel-air explosive causes widespread devastation.

A typical bomb of that type is dropped or fired, the first explosive charge bursts open the container at a predetermined height and disperses the fuel in a cloud that mixes with oxygen.

A second charge ignites the cloud, which can engulf objects or buildings.

Rushkin goes on to say:

“... I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one.”

So less than a week after Australia signs on to an agreement with the President of Russia on a nuclear arrangement, the President goes home to welcome the explosion of the world’s most powerful vacuum bomb. These are hardly the activities of a state which is supposedly only interested in peace and disarmament.

We have also reports from Russia about human rights abuses. In particular, I would like to talk about Larissa Arap. I will raise her name in this parliament time and time again because she is a young dissident who finds herself now in a psychiatric facility in Russia, in an asylum reminiscent of the old KGB days. She is a critic of President Putin. As a result, she was put in a psychiatric institution, and there has been a change in the law in Russia to remove the right of sectioned patients to seek independent assessment. There are dozens of incidents now suggesting that Russia’s psychiatric system is rapidly becoming as unsavoury as it used to be in Soviet times. Larissa Arap is a young woman who has been an outspoken critic of the Putin regime, particularly in relation to the crackdown on dissidents, and that is where she finds herself.

I believe at this stage that Larissa is still alive, unlike the demonstrators outside the Angarsk enrichment facility, where one demonstrator was murdered, bashed to death, recently and a number of others were seriously injured. President Putin suggested that it was just the actions of local hooligans and not state endorsed violence. State endorsed violence is occurring all over Russia as we speak. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the Moscow apartment bombings were the work of the FSB and also that the FSB is supporting fundamentalist Islamic schools in Chechnya to foment the violence there to justify the crackdown. That is what is being said currently about—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a sad conspiracy theorist if you think that.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite interesting that the senator who is interjecting is so ill-read when it comes to what is actually going on in Russia at the moment. That is why it would be extremely useful to have the inquiry as I am suggesting it, because then we could actually test the allegations. From a number of academics in Sydney last week and a number of people from Russia who also work in Russia, there is now a considerable body of opinion to suggest that that is the way that the Putin regime operates.

I think the naivety that has been demonstrated by the government is reminiscent of former Prime Minister of Australia Pig Iron Bob—whom Prime Minister Howard wishes to emulate—who in 1938-39 when the waterside workers tried to ban the export of pig-iron to Japan overrode that. Of course, the pig-iron went to Japan with appalling consequences for Australia and in fact for the rest of the world. I would suggest that, as we have had Pig Iron Bob, our current Prime Minister could be known as ‘Yellowcake John’—emulating Pig Iron Bob in the dying days of his prime ministership.

I hope we will hear from the Labor Party in a moment. If it is true that there is until the middle of 2008 for a proper assessment of this Russian nuclear agreement, I hope the Labor Party will conduct, under this process, a proper assessment of this deal with the Russians such that the human rights ramifications are taken into account and not just the interests of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. We know that they have been talking to the Russians for some time about this particular text—in looking at the agreement it seems that it could easily facilitate the involvement of both those companies in mining uranium in Russia as well as here and also the involvement of private sector investment in the uranium enrichment facility in Angarsk. It could well be interesting because Russia under the current leadership has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law, whether it comes to human rights, civil rights or corporate law, as Shell discovered when it built a large pipeline only to have it nationalised after the event. The same has occurred with Khodorkovsky, who has been jailed and his Yukos assets nationalised. He remains in prison in Russia with what are trumped-up charges such that the Swiss federal court recently has said that it will not provide information to the Russians because it is clearly a politically motivated trial to keep him in jail until after the Duma elections and the presidential elections next year.

So we have an appalling pattern emerging in Russia. President Putin has brought in a new crime of extremism, and it is under that crime that a number of journalists have been found guilty. We know that at least 14 journalists have been murdered in Russia since Putin came to power and to this day there are suggestions that up to 21 have been murdered. Putin has also brought in a law to say that it is legal to kill an enemy of the state outside Russia, which means the murder of Litvinenko becomes a state sanctioned act of violence under the Putin regime. That is a matter of fact.

Only last week I met with Grigory Pasko just before he left to go back to Russia. He was terrified. He was the journalist who reported the dumping of nuclear waste from Russia into the Pacific. He is now a declared enemy of the state. That is the kind of behaviour that is going on under President Putin. It is extremely sobering to consider what is happening there and then look at the political process where President Putin has moved to remove the democratic election of governors. They are now all appointed by the state. We also have a change to the electoral laws that prevent other political parties being able to contest the elections there because suddenly they do not meet the new requirements.

All of these things are actually occurring in Russia at the moment and it has been recognised by the European Union, which on 18 May 2007 passed a long resolution in which it expressed its deep concern about:

... the use of force by the Russian authorities against peaceful anti-government demonstrators in Moscow and St Petersburg ...

And stressed:

... that freedom of speech and the right of assembly are fundamental human rights ...

In fact, the British ambassador to Russia has been treated appallingly because he stood up for free speech and human rights when he addressed a conference in Russia. The Australian ambassador has not shown the same level of courage in terms of speaking out on these issues, and I urge the government to do so.

The Europeans include in their treaties obligations about civil rights and human rights. Have a look at the European treaties that they have entered into. They incorporate into those treaties those issues. In fact, Don Rothwell from the ANU in a critique of the government’s proposed arrangements says that there should be conditionality clauses at the very least—making the treaty conditional upon human rights.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne interjecting—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Apparently, Senator Payne is outraged at the notion that you would have conditionality clauses in such a treaty that cover issues such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I urge Senator Payne and other government members to read Don Rothwell’s advice in relation to negotiating positions for Australia with regard to that Australian-Russian agreement because there is obviously room for conditionality and it is not in there. The conditionality clauses on human rights are not in this agreement, nor is there a commitment to the rule of law or to the upholding of democracy and the democracy movement. The European Union went on to express its:

... deep concern at the continuing reports from Russian and international human rights organisations about the use of torture and the commission of inhumane and degrading acts in prisons, police stations and secret detention centres in Chechnya ...

The EU strongly condemned. It called on the Russian authorities to:

... ensure that the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Russia is a signatory, are fully respected in the Chechen Republic ...

It also expressed its concern:

... about social and political polarisation and the restriction of democratic freedoms in the run-up to the Duma elections ...

And called on:

... the EU and on Russia, as a member of the UN Security Council, to assume their responsibility for the Iranian nuclear issue ...

It expressed its concern:

... about declarations made by President Putin in reaction to the United States’ plans to deploy components of its anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic and calls on all parties involved to engage in dialogue ...

Et cetera, et cetera. So the European Union is very aware of what is going on in Russia. The European Union is also very afraid because when President Putin turned off the gas to Europe he knew very well what he was doing, and it gave all of Europe a sense of the power of Russia as a major energy supplier to Europe, and made the rest of Europe scramble on this issue of energy security, which is why they are going full-on in renewables and trying to develop alternatives so that their dependence on Russia is minimised, given the way things are going.

At the same time, you had the Russians joining in the military exercises under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. You had Russian bombers for the first time resuming their long-range flights. Of course, the bombers I am referring to are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. It is in that scenario that Australia rushes with its Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. I think it is foolhardy in the extreme for Australia to put profits from uranium sales ahead of global security, and that is precisely what is going on here. Nothing in this agreement talks about human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech or guaranteeing any of those things. There is no reason why all of those things ought not to have been in conditionality clauses. I will be very interested to hear what the opposition has to say because, as I indicated, it is likely to be in government and dealing with the joint house assessment of the process. I would hope that the opposition would take the issue of human rights more seriously than the government does.

I note with interest, of course, that it was the waterside workers who were trying, back in 1938-39, to do the right thing in terms of the exports of pig-iron to Japan. Under this government, of course, not only have we had the secondary boycotts but we now have the ACCC legislation coming in here to try and prevent even any kind of civil protest. So we have a situation where things have moved desperately backwards in the last 70 years in relation to the capacity of civil society in Australia to take action when governments become so bereft of any kind of ethical stand. There is no ethical framework within which this agreement with Russia has been assessed. There has been no discussion of it except in the context of maximising profits from the export of Australian uranium. That is the only context.

BHP and Rio Tinto have been in there all the way. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins: where has there been the input from the academics and the human rights and civil society groups in relation to this Russia-Australia agreement? They have been nowhere; they have been excluded from the process. The values that are behind this agreement are just putting profits ahead of principle and it will be to our detriment. Prime Minister Howard will have the legacy he wants: he will be reminded that he has emulated Pig Iron Bob by becoming ‘Yellowcake John’.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say at the outset that it is clear to me that there is nothing that the Australian Greens will not do to suffocate Australian business, no matter where it is active. Senator Milne’s remarks this afternoon are just another example of that. What the Australian government has to say in relation to this particular motion to refer the agreement to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is what the minister has in fact most explicitly outlined on the record until now anyway. We would not be entering into this agreement if we were not confident that Russia will comply with the commitments given in the Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

The position from which Australia starts, as far as reserves of uranium are concerned at the very least, is that we have 38 per cent of the world’s reserves of uranium, which is indeed more than any other country. In the 2006-07 financial year, we exported about $630 million worth of that uranium, which is expected to rise to $814 million in this financial year. Under the arrangement in this particular discussion, Australia will export about 2,000 tonnes of uranium annually, and that will provide about a third of Russia’s imported uranium. It is fair to say that, until this point, Russia has had its own considerable energy resources and has not needed to import uranium, but it does have considerable plans to substantially increase its nuclear fuel capacity—30 new reactors in the next 30 years—and that means it is, in fact, searching for new opportunities.

This particular agreement, the 2007 Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, will supersede the 1990 treaty, which allowed for Australian uranium to be processed by the then USSR on behalf of third countries which had safeguard arrangements with Australia, but the uranium could not be used domestically by the Soviets. No Australian uranium has been sent to Russia for processing in the 17 years since that agreement was signed. In fact, until recently Russia had not designated which facilities were for military purposes and which were for fuel production, so it was not eligible for the mandatory safeguard inspections upon which Australia insists. Last year, Russia agreed to separate its military and civil programs, paving the way for this particular arrangement with Australia.

Regarding Australia’s economic engagement with Russia, I think it is worth noting for the record that Russia is Australia’s second fastest growing export partner—only just behind India and ahead of China—with 95 per cent growth in 2005-06 alone. In 2006, Australia exported $656 million worth of goods to Russia, which doubled the amount of the previous year.

Let me make it absolutely clear: in line with standard Australian treaty practice, the Australia-Russian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement and a national interest analysis will be tabled in parliament for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The government has been clear on this process from the moment that negotiations on the agreement were announced. In fact, in the minister’s press release of April this year, he announced that:

In accordance with Australian treaty-making practice the agreement will be tabled in Parliament for review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when negotiations have been finalised and in advance of binding treaty action being taken.

In terms of the timing of when the agreement and the national interest analysis will be tabled for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, that is indeed dependent on the parliamentary sitting schedule. It is worth noting that, if the agreement were also referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it would then be in the situation of being considered by both that committee and the JSCOT in parallel. I understand and would have thought that it would normally be the case that there would be ample opportunity for members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to seek responses to the questions which Senator Milne and other senators raise if they wish to do so—certainly Senate members of that committee, as it is a joint committee.

As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the government is confident that Russia will abide by the terms of the agreement as they are negotiated—namely, that Australian uranium would only be used in facilities covered by Russia’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA. As has been stated elsewhere and also by the minister, it is simply not in Russia’s national interests to misuse Australian uranium. Inevitably they will become increasingly reliant on external supplies of uranium to fuel their growing nuclear power industry and if they misuse it then they effectively cut off that option for themselves. They have no need to import uranium particularly for nuclear weapons. As a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in the last 15 years they have made a number of statements in relation to their use of uranium. They announced in 1994 that they had ceased production of fissile material for weapons. They have made substantial cuts in their nuclear weapons build-up since the Cold War, with further reduction agreements made with the United States in the 2002 Moscow treaty.

All of Australia’s bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements, which include the existing 1990 Australia-Russian agreement as well as the new agreement, require that Australia’s consent be obtained before Australian nuclear material can be transferred to a third country. I note that that was not adverted to by Senator Milne. Russia, like all parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, has committed to supply nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states only for peaceful purposes. If one looks at Russia’s record in the Security Council then it is worth noting that Russia has supported international action against Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities, including Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747, which have imposed sanctions on certain activities, including Iran’s enrichment related and reprocessing activities.

With regard to this particular motion—and it seems to me that the motion is confusing a number of issues—and the points it raises in relation to the implications of the agreement for the sale of nuclear fuel to India, they are separate agreements, separate matters, and I am at a loss to understand where Senator Milne is endeavouring to draw a comparison. In signing the agreement Russia has, as I said, committed to abiding by all of the agreement’s provisions.

To clarify this for the record, in relation to comments Senator Milne made during her remarks this afternoon, I was indeed appalled by an observation that Senator Milne made, but not the one relating to conditionality at all—and it would be ridiculous to pretend that that were the case. What I was appalled by was the cavalier manner in which Senator Milne chose to cast aspersions on our diplomatic representatives, in this case in Russia, and what they may or may not be doing. It occurs to me that Senator Milne is most unlikely to know in fact what they are or are not doing and is even more unlikely to have made best endeavours to determine the answer to that question. Reflecting on their role and their job without even bothering to do that is in my view most ill advised in this chamber.

In relation to the other very important matter of human rights, which Senator Milne raised in her remarks and from which I do not demur for a moment in terms of their importance and in terms of issues which are currently under debate in relation to Russia, there are opportunities in this chamber and in the committees of the parliament to deal with those matters. As I understand it, membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade was available to the minor parties but that opportunity was not taken up. That is a choice that they have made. It is not one which I am obliged to defend or otherwise. But other opportunities do arise and I would commend those to the senators who have raised these concerns and encourage them to participate at that level.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to indicate briefly that Labor supports this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The reference gives the parliament the opportunity to examine the details of the bilateral agreement signed by President Putin and Mr Howard during APEC. Given that Russia is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Labor starts from a position of being open to sales of uranium to an NPT signatory. But Labor would certainly like to see Russia ratify the International Atomic Energy Agency’s additional protocol which it signed seven years ago. The additional protocol strengthens the inspections and safeguards regime.

The committee’s scrutiny of the agreement will be an important part of the process of detailed consideration. In particular, the reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee will provide the opportunity to examine the adequacy of safeguards being built into the agreement, domestic security issues relating to Russia and the importance of the IAEA additional protocol to the agreement. This is much the same process that was conducted in regard to the sale of uranium to China. Labor therefore supports this reference.

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

The Democrats also support the terms of reference put forward today to examine Australia’s deal with Russia. We do not think that the parliamentary oversight which Senator Payne suggests will be provided through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is adequate. Typically that committee does not undertake a thorough examination of the sorts of issues that have already been raised by Senator Milne and which I will raise as well. It is doubtful that that could be in any way a thorough going over of this agreement, so why not refer it to a committee for proper examination? I would also ask why it is that we have to have this deal with Russia right now. This is a major departure from the previously cautious approach that Australia has taken to who gets to have its uranium. At the end of an electoral cycle why is it that suddenly this agreement needs to be renegotiated and signed? I think that is something of a mystery. It is also questionable whether, with an election looming, even the treaty process which is being promised will have any effect at all.

The first point I want to make is that we are being sold something of a pup, because it is not clear to me how the government can justify Russia needing our uranium. Russia has its own uranium. Even if Russia were to install 30 reactors over the next 30 years, there would be no need for us to rush into an agreement with Russia to hand over our uranium to it. It does not need it at this point in time. In fact, Russia has 700 tonnes of highly enriched uranium which was extracted from the nuclear weapons that it dismantled in the 1990s. That highly enriched uranium is required to be mixed with uranium in order to make a substance which is then exported to other countries, notably the United States. The real issue here seems to be not so much that Russia needs our uranium but that Russia needs our uranium so that it can pass a product off to the United States. At least half of the United States’ supply of reactor fuel has been sourced from Russia over recent years. But there is, as I said, 700 tonnes of highly enriched uranium still sitting there. Not only that but there are 10,000 weapons.

It has been said that Russia needs to be congratulated on reducing its armaments, its nuclear weapons arsenal. It did; it got rid of mostly obsolete weapons, and that presumably did not pose a problem, but it still holds 10,000 nuclear warheads—probably enough to blow up the planet as we know it. Why Australia has not taken the opportunity to leverage out of Russia an agreement to a time frame within which it will dismantle the remainder of its weapons is anyone’s guess. Since the United States stands to benefit from this deal, or so it would seem to me, then why not put some leverage on the United States as well? These two major powers, together with the other nuclear weapons states around the world, are ignoring the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which requires them to disarm. The deal was that countries that were not nuclear weapons states would not take up nuclear weapons provided that the nuclear weapons states would begin a process of dismantling their weapons. That has come to a standstill. There has been no progress in the United States, and, as I said, while Russia has almost halved its nuclear weapons, 10,000 remain.

The other thing we should be pressing Russia to do is ratify the additional protocol of the IAEA. Why not do that? Here is a perfect opportunity to make sure that the weapons inspection regime is extended so that the IAEA can properly supervise Russia’s separation, so-called, of peaceful activities and uses of uranium from warlike activities and uses. Again, the government has failed to do the right thing in terms of the security of this material.

On human rights, similarly, the government has chosen to ignore the fact that the human rights regime—in fact, the compliance of the Russian government to its own laws—has been appalling in recent years. The radioactive polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko hit the world’s papers, and the United Kingdom is having great difficulty in prosecuting the KGB agents whom it expects are responsible for his awful death. Not only that but, at a forum just a couple of weeks ago, Senator Milne and I heard that 14 journalists who were dissidents and critics of the Putin regime have mysteriously lost their lives in violent circumstances. Garry Kasparov, the former world champion chess player, urges Australia not to sell uranium to Russia, saying that it has:

… zero obedience to the rule of law …

We heard lots of evidence about the extent of the corruption in Russia, which gives us no confidence whatsoever that our uranium will be held secure. It seems to me that Russia wants to be a major supplier around the world of enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors. It is entitled to wish to be in that situation, but the question is whether or not Australia should be allowing it to happen.

Senator Payne said that Russia will have to ask our permission to transfer radioactive material out of the country but she did not say which countries are ‘in’ and which countries are ‘out’. Since we are prepared to sell uranium to China, Russia and India, one wonders which countries would actually be ruled out. Is it okay to send it to North Korea or to Iran? When can we see a list of countries to which Australia would approve the transfer of material which included our uranium? It is not forthcoming now and I somehow doubt that it would be in any short inquiry taken on by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Our government claims that the agreement will guarantee that our yellowcake is used purely for peaceful purposes, but it is hard to seriously believe that Australian officials are going to have access to Russia’s facilities. It defies all common sense. Russia is either unwilling or unable to stop nuclear material from getting into the hands of terrorists. We know that from 2001 to 2006 there were 183 reported trafficking incidents involving nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. So why isn’t the government insisting that the level of security over radioactive material be greatly enhanced so that we do not get any further examples of a very lax security approach?

There is, of course, one way of guaranteeing that our uranium is only used to generate power—and that is, as I said earlier, to insist on disarmament and nonproliferation. On both counts, Russia fails miserably. Like all other weapon states, Russia is actively engaged in nuclear rearmament. The euphemism used by Russia, as by other places, is ‘modernisation’. What this means is nasty, more powerful nuclear weapons and very few of the old arsenal being dismantled.

Russia’s nuclear weapons program still generates a lot of international instability. President Putin recently announced that his long-range bombers would resume their routine flights around the globe for the first time since the eighties. Plans are afoot, I understand, to double combat aircraft production by 2025, with more nuclear missiles. The fact is that there is a build-up of nuclear weapons around the world, and Russia’s dismantling of just a few thousand obsolete nukes in favour of these newer ones offers no comfort to the rest of the world. Russia, like all other nuclear weapons states, flouts the nuclear non-proliferation treaty every day.

Most discussion about a nexus between nuclear trafficking and organised crime and terrorism has focused on the former Soviet Union, particularly Central Asia and the Caucasus. According to the US based Arms Control Association, these regions house a large number of insufficiently secured nuclear facilities in close proximity to the trafficking routes for drugs and small arms. Most trafficking is in low-grade nuclear material from medical and industrial facilities abandoned by the military. However, 10 of the known trafficking incidents between 2001 and 2006 involved highly enriched uranium. On three occasions the uranium had an enrichment level of greater than 80 per cent, making it suitable for a nuclear bomb. In 2002, Chechnyan rebels stole nuclear material from a Russian nuclear power plant and, in 2003, two individuals attempted to acquire 15 kilograms of uranium allegedly for use in a radioactive bomb to be detonated in St Petersburg.

Admittedly, significant proliferation cases where kilogram-level quantities of weapons grade material are trafficked have dropped off since the 1990s, but the absence of evidence in more recent cases is not evidence of absence. Investigations of trafficking incidents usually focus solely on the seller of the uranium, with no attempt to uncover wider networks. Communication between governments in the region is poor and many borders are unprotected because of internal disputes. Most customs officials are not trained to recognise the significance of trafficking in nuclear materials.

All of this evidence is well known to the Australian government, so it cannot claim ignorance. The deal with Russia, which seems to be in its final stages, carries very grave risks that no responsible government should find acceptable. Again, I find it amazing that Mr Howard is mystified by how poor his polling is right now. Perhaps he needs to reflect on the fact that his willingness to sell Australian uranium to almost any country that asks for it might have something to do with that.

This agreement needs much more significant oversight than is being allowed. I urge the government, in the interests of transparency and global security, to refer this to a committee for a significant inquiry—not one that start and stops in five minutes but one that can take a thorough look and hear the evidence from those who are expert in this field.

Senator Payne said the treaty’s commissioning will depend on the sitting schedule—and that is the problem. That is why we need to delay this agreement until there has been a proper inquiry which any senator who wishes to be part of can take an interest in and inform themselves of the issues. The Democrats strongly support the reference of this treaty to a committee and hope that the government will reconsider.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution and I express my disappointment that the government is not going to support a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to investigate this agreement. I still did not get confirmation from the government that this process is not going to be assessed until the middle of next year through appropriate process. All we got was, ‘It depends on the sitting schedule’—and the worst thing that could happen, of course, is that the government decides to rush this through in the dying days of this administration.

Senator Payne sounds outraged about the fact that the government is not taking human rights into account—it is not. All she said was she is confident that the Russians will uphold the commitments they have made in this agreement. They have not made one commitment in this agreement to democracy or human rights—not one! To expect that they would uphold an agreement they have not made is just a ridiculous notion. It is about attempting to pretend that the government is doing anything other than entering into a pure and simple trade agreement to maximise profits—and not taking the opportunity to tie this to an additional protocol and additional clauses which would be consistent with Australia’s promotion of human rights on a global and regional level and send a clear signal to the Russian Federation that Australia expects its trade partners to adhere to certain standards. Closely linked would be the values of human rights and democracy and the rule of law, without which Australia cannot have any assurance that Russia will in good faith adhere to the principles of the agreement, which is central to the integrity of the safeguards and verification standards to which Australia gives such weight.

Why wouldn’t we include promotion and protection of, and respect for, human rights and democratic values in such an agreement? I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, that the reason we would not is that we have no confidence that the Russians would uphold it, and it would mean that, if they did not uphold it, we would have to suspend the agreement because a breach of the relevant conditions had taken place. They would not want to do that because they would not want to disrupt the profits flowing into those companies.

I think this is a really important issue. Australia ought to take into account the behaviour of the countries we do business with. How is the international community ever going to promote democracy and human rights unless we make our trade conditional upon them? Otherwise, we are saying: ‘We’ll turn a blind eye to what is going on in your country. We’ll just trade and let you get away with whatever you like in terms of human rights and democracy standards.’

Senator Payne also said that there was some confusion in the motion because I had talked about India and that this was about a deal with Russia—which just demonstrates why you need a Senate inquiry. Let me explain to Senator Payne and to Senator Brandis, who are not in the chamber, why this has relevance to the India deal. The India-Russia agreement and Australia’s declaration that it too would sell uranium to India is all very well until you get to the point where India has a nuclear test. Then the US agreement will be suspended and so too will any agreement by Australia to sell uranium to India. But India wants a guaranteed supply. What will it do? It will sign up to the Russian agreement as well and that means, in the event that its supply is cut off from Australia and the US, it can get the enriched uranium it needs from Russia. Furthermore, in the US-India agreement there is an arrangement whereby, if it is suspended, India has to return to the US a certain volume of nuclear fuel. Russia could provide that to India to give back to the US and continue exactly as it had planned. How will it get the uranium in Russia in order to give it back to India to give back to the US? It will get it because Australia will be supplying the uranium into Russia to have it enriched.

We have heard the government say, ‘It won’t be Australian uranium that goes to any other facility.’ Everybody knows you cannot trace uranium. Once it goes into a facility, it becomes part of the mass in that facility. The way uranium is measured is simply by volume—you have to prove you have displaced this much volume or sent this volume somewhere else. That is the link that Senator Payne did not understand. In fact, the Indians understand it very well, as do the Russians. I will cite a particular document I have here. It states:

The main assurance that the initiative should provide is that a country complying with its non-proliferation commitments must be sure that, whatever the turn of events, whatever changes take place in the international situation, it will receive the services guaranteed to it.

That is the Russians telling the Indians that part of the deal is that, whatever changes happen, they will guarantee the supply. The Indian interpretation in this particular document is this:

In the event of an Indian test, the US law banning nuclear exports would become operative and so would the domestic legislations of other potential suppliers such as France, Australia, Canada or the UK, as it happened after the 1998 Pokhran tests. However, if India becomes party to the Russian project, the IUEC could become the source for fuel to be returned to the US. For, the statute of the IUEC only says that its services would be available to any partnering country ‘complying with its non-proliferation commitments’. Further there is no Russian law that prevents nuclear exports in the event of a nuclear test as is evident from the Russian project ...

What we have here, clearly, is a mechanism by which the Russians will be the backstop for the Indians in the event that the Indians go ahead with their nuclear tests. They have said it is part of their undertaking that they will, that the US agreement and the Australian uranium will not subject them to not going ahead with nuclear tests. So all Australia is doing is not only promising to provide uranium to India but also, now with this Russian agreement, sending more uranium to Russia, where it will be enriched and sent on to third parties, as it is currently. President Putin has come out and not only said that the Russians provided the technology for the Iranian reactor but also, on the very weekend they were negotiating here in Australia, announced the timetable for the transfer of enriched fuel from Russia to Iran to that reactor.

As we stand here today, details are just emerging about the recent Israeli flyover of Syria—a hugely significant international incident that was played down because it was so serious. Why did the Israelis fly over Syria? Because a shipment from North Korea was heading to Syria. This was a major international incident just in the last couple of weeks. That is the kind of world into which Australia are saying we are happy to sell our uranium, and we are not even prepared to put a caveat on the deals saying they are conditional upon upholding laws pertaining to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

If Australia does not stand for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, what do we stand for, apart from maximising profits to companies that donate heavily to political parties? What else do we stand for? Where is our standing globally? We have abandoned multilateralism. We have abandoned international conventions, it seems. We have given up on the Geneva convention, because we supported Guantanamo Bay. We have given up on the refugee convention. We trash the World Heritage convention when it suits us. Whichever way you look, you see multilateralism overturned. Last week, we saw Australia vote against a United Nations resolution in relation to indigenous rights. Week in, week out, Australia stands for less and less in the global community.

This agreement with Russia must be scrutinised appropriately by the parliament. Having heard from the government, I do not have any confidence that that is going to be the case. I hope that Senator Payne and Senator Brandis are listening to what I am saying. It may actually interest them that, when they voted against this last week, when they were busy supporting the Prime Minister’s arrangements, they did not even understand the link with the India deal. They did not understand that they are actually facilitating India moving full-on with its nuclear program. Yet they stand here and say that they are confident Russia will uphold the agreement. There is no provision in it for the rule of law, for human rights or for democracy. I feel ashamed that Australia is not taking the opportunity to be a global leader. As we watch so many countries retreat from democracy, why aren’t we making those conditions?

I hope that the Labor Party in government would see its way clear to have a really good look at this Australia-Russia uranium deal and repudiate it, and look at the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership that Australia signed up to last night. We had to find that one out through the Times of India. Prime Minister Howard is apparently ashamed to tell Australians that last night he signed up to President Bush’s deal. You have to read what goes on in nuclear countries in order to find out what he is up to. The Canadians did not sign because they are worried about having to become a global nuclear waste dump. What did Australia sign up to last night in Europe?

So I would like to hear not only that the Labor Party in government would repudiate both of these deals but that, at the very least, we would get a commitment that Australia reassert itself on the global stage as an upholder of human rights, of the rule of law and of decency in global and international negotiations; otherwise we are no better than a lot of the other states we condemn at various times. We are not taking the opportunities that we are afforded. How must it feel for the Russian dissidents to watch the Australian government shaking hands with President Putin, knowing that journalists have been murdered and that human rights campaigners are in psychiatric asylums as I speak? How must they feel when the news goes back into the state owned television and state owned newspapers that President Putin is legitimised and hailed as a great trading partner in Australia when they are asking for help to repudiate the deals and expose what President Putin is doing in Russia by suppressing freedom of speech and the political democracy movement?

That is what is going on in that country and, if the government do not know it, it is because they choose not to know it. Any cursory examination of what is going on in Russia today will tell you that President Putin is taking that country back to the KGB days and the FSB rules. I hope now we see Senator McGauran go back and start reading about those Russian apartment bombings and what is going on in Chechnya and find that President Putin’s hands are not clean in relation to fomenting uprisings in order to suppress freedom of speech, jail dissidents and return to punitive psychiatry. When we review the period of his presidency in Russia, we are going to see just how rapidly he took that country backwards and how Australia turned a blind eye, to our shame.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.