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

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present report No. 94 of the committee, Treaties tabled on 14 May 2008, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In doing so I would like to make some remarks in my capacity as Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The Chair is Mr Kelvin Thomson from the House of Representatives. I know everyone in this parliament works very hard on the committees they undertake, both government and opposition members and occasionally those from minority parties, but I have to say that the treaties committee does take on an extra burden of work. People would be surprised at just how many treaties governments deal with, both large and small. It is not and will not be my custom as deputy chair to speak on every one of those treaties, but a treaty in the report I have tabled today is of significance. It is a treaty that I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate. It relates to the agreement between Australia and the Russian Federation on cooperation in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It establishes a regime that will, for the first time, allow Australia to provide uranium for use in Russia’s nuclear plants. Longstanding Australian government policy has only allowed Australian uranium and nuclear material derived from it to be exported to countries with which Australia has concluded a nuclear safeguards agreement. This agreement will establish safeguard arrangements, the key objectives being to ensure that no material is ever used for or diverted to any military purpose.

Australia’s safeguard agreements are designed to complement the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards system and rely upon the IAEA inspections. The majority of the committee have recommended that ratification not proceed. The majority of the committee—in other words, the government members—have recommended that this treaty not be ratified. That is why I take this opportunity to stand up and note that the opposition members have put in a dissenting report—as rare as that is on the treaties committee—to recommend that the government and the parliament do ratify this most important and crucial treaty.

There is a distinct difference between the government members and the opposition members in relation to this particular treaty. It is an important difference to note, and, I think, one that many of the government members—the frontbench in general if not the foreign minister in particular—will be slightly concerned about. The concern would be that government members on this committee have gone off on a frolic; that is seemingly so if you read the report. Whose evidence did they rely on? They did not rely on the experts—those who came before us with the experience: the department and the atomic energy agencies. They did not rely on the experience and expertise of the departments; they have instead relied upon what I would classify as some extreme antinuclear groups, who gave very little or no evidence other than the prejudice and bias of their longstanding position against uranium mining and against uranium exports.

The fundamental reason why the opposition have recommended that this treaty be ratified is that it is in Australia’s national interest. It is in Australia’s trade interest and it is in Australia’s interests directly with the Russian Federation. Moreover, if you wish, when you finish reading this report, to go deeper into the Hansard of the committee hearings, you will notice that the opposition members rigorously challenged the department, their expertise and what they were telling us in regard to the safeguards necessary and the workability, if you like, of this particular treaty. We did not just accept it on face value; we rigorously challenged the department in regard to their assertions that this treaty ought to be ratified and that the safeguards were in place. We were convinced and we are confident that that is the case, and that is why we have put in the dissenting report. My colleagues also wish to speak to this report and endorse my words.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens welcome the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 94, which concludes, after thorough examination and canvassing of broad expertise from the scientific, political, medical and environmental communities, that it would not be prudent to sell Australian uranium to Russia.

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

Left-wing fruitloops!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fruitloops such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would like to note that this was the position of the Australian Greens from the outset. The Greens alone opposed this deal signed by Mr Howard and Mr Putin at the APEC summit, when Senator Milne presented a pretty clear case and numerous arguments on nuclear safety, human rights, and international peace and security grounds against this deal.

Russia maintains a stockpile of 15,000 nuclear weapons, and Russia is actively modernising its nuclear weapons stockpile at this time. It is transferring nuclear fuel and reactor technology to Iran, and in January this year the Russian chief of the armed forces claimed the right to use these weapons of mass destruction ‘preventatively’. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report notes that a significant meeting on the NPT is coming up in 2010 and that we should see some action from the nuclear weapons states at this meeting on their legal obligations to disarm and eliminate their nuclear stockpiles.

Nuclear safety in Russia is patently inadequate, and Russia has an unfortunate habit of ‘losing’ nuclear material. According to the detailed database of the Institute for International Studies, around 40 kilograms of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium had been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union in the decade to 2002. The Stanford Database on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources has also recorded at least 370 incidents involving former Soviet countries—56 per cent of the global total, more than half. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report notes these concerns.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has not conducted inspections in Russia for at least six years. ASNO, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, continues to state that all of Australia’s uranium exports are subject to strict safeguard conditions given legally binding effect through bilateral safeguards agreements, which senators on the other side have gone on about at some length. But the safeguards regime itself is inadequate, and lack of inspections for the last six years can hardly be described as strict adherence to world’s best practice. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, in his speech on 11 June 2007 to the IAEA Board of Governors, stated:

I should also underline that, even with the proposed budget, the Agency’s financial situation remains vulnerable, and we still fall short of what is needed to carry out our mission in an effective manner. Significant additional resources are still sorely needed. Our laboratories are full of equipment that is outdated, although vital to carry out essential verification, safety and development functions. Our nuclear security programme remains 90% funded through unpredictable and heavily conditioned voluntary contributions. Our safety department continues to rely heavily on extra-budgetary staff.

And these are the people who we rely on as a nation to track what happens to Australian uranium when it is shipped overseas. The standing committee report recommends that Australia work with other countries to support the increased resources to this underfunded and understaffed agency, and the Australian Greens welcome this recommendation.

I would also like to note that the human rights situation in Russia is appalling. Russia’s inadequate protections for protesters, trade unions and whistleblowers, as well as media censorship, make the credibility of Russian democracy or the rule of law there highly suspect. Russia is an erratic, unreliable and essentially undemocratic state, a state that uses military invasion and suppression of people in neighbouring countries. This is not a regime we should be sending uranium to.

It is a matter of note that the Australian Greens oppose all uranium mining and export. This is the first step in the nuclear fuel chain that leads to nuclear weapons. Nuclear power stations today—and there are more than 400 of them in the world—are essentially plutonium factories. Uranium mining is an ecologically damaging link in the nuclear chain because for every tonne of uranium oxide that we produce and export hundreds of thousands of tonnes of radioactive wastes, or tailings, are left behind at the mine sites. Often these tailings are just dumped in huge dams near the mine sites and left to the effects of the elements. These tailings, or wastes, contain about 80 per cent of the radioactivity that was contained in the original ore. One of the major isotopes from uranium mine tailings is thorium-230 with a half-life of 75,000 years. Uranium-238, the most prevalent isotope in uranium ore, has a half-life of about 4½ billion years—that is approximately the age of our planet—and only half the atoms will decay in that amount of time.

Uranium mining is hazardous to human health. The wind carries radon gas and radioactive dust from these tailings for many miles. Uranium miners are exposed to the gas and to other process chemicals and so on that are associated with uranium mining and they suffer increased rates of lung cancer, according to the physicians of the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

Uranium mining also requires an enormous amount of water. BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, the driest state in the world’s driest continent, uses around 33 million litres of water every single day. A proposed expansion of this mine would increase this to up to 162 million litres per day. This water essentially becomes radioactive waste after it has been through the process and it is placed in evaporation ponds that are not always adequately secured from the elements. Historically, Indigenous people’s lands have also been used to mine uranium—this is happening in the present day—to dump radioactive wastes and detonate atomic bombs both above ground and below ground, resulting in huge radioactive contamination.

The Howard-Putin Australia-Russia Nuclear Cooperation Agreement is a 30-year proposed agreement. It is an extremely poor and ineffective instrument for dealing with substances that remain radiotoxic to humans for half-lives of millions of years. The Rudd government should strongly take the advice of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and not proceed with ratification. The Greens strongly support the recommendations as printed in this report.

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

I rise to speak on report No. 94 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and wish to deal primarily with the agreement with the Russian Federation on cooperation in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but will also say a couple of words about the other treaty that is under consideration.

The report tabled today shows the absolute confusion and division that reigns supreme in the Labor Party when it comes to uranium and nuclear policies. It is quite amazing to see the way the Labor Party ties itself up in knots and contortions over uranium and its usage, export and mining. We see today just how totally divided the Labor Party clearly remains when it comes to uranium policy in Australia because today we have yet another new position from the government when it comes to uranium mining and the export of uranium. Today we have a report from the government dominated treaties committee, the majority recommendation of which is that we not ratify a treaty with the Russian Federation for the peaceful use of uranium—quite amazing. Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, you being a Western Australian, you would have followed the debate in your home state over uranium mining in recent weeks and you would have seen how ineffective the Labor Party position taken by the former Premier was there. We saw Labor for many years tie itself up in knots over the three-mines policy, about how many mines we should have. Three mines seemed to be enough, apparently.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three were moral; four mines were immoral!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I rise today to support the recommendations in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It is a decision which should have been made before any such deal with Russia was signed in the first place. It was very clear, leading up to APEC last year, that the Russians were receding from any notion of democracy and engagement but instead were going back to the old KGB days under President Putin, now the Prime Minister. That is obvious. I am not surprised to hear this kind of thing from the coalition—it was Bob Menzies, after all, who thought that profits from the sale of pig-iron to Japan were a great idea, and look where that got us. We are seeing here today exactly the same thing. We are hearing about the profits for Western Australia. Senator Cash is thinking that the income to Western Australia would be fabulous.

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

There are environmental benefits as well.

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

Senator Birmingham’s attitude is: ‘Bring in the money; we don’t care about human rights; we don’t care about global peace; we don’t care about foreign policy.’

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about greenhouse gas emissions?

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

I love it when they take me on on climate change. This is a bag-load of people who know nothing about climate change; they have never engaged on climate change and now they want to talk to me about climate change.

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

Senator Cash interjecting—

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

Let me tell you something, Senator Cash. Prime Minister Putin wants to be the energy tsar of Europe.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Milne, would you care to direct your comments through the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would point out to the Senate that Prime Minister Putin wants to be the energy tsar of Europe. Russia is so rich in energy that, when it threatens to turn off the tap, Europe quakes. So to suggest here today that Russian needs this uranium to meet its obligations in terms of energy supply is an utter and absolute nonsense.

Let me go first of all to the displacement of Russian uranium to Iran. We have heard from the opposition that the safeguards are fabulous—they are all in place. So tell me why the IAEA cannot guarantee that the reactor in Iran is being built for civilian purposes. The reason they cannot is that they do not know because there is so little money going to the IAEA to actually implement safeguards that it is a joke. If you cannot say whether that Russian built reactor in Iran today is capable of producing plutonium at weapons grade material then you most certainly cannot trust the Russians.

I would also point out that at the moment in Russia under the Putin regime—and let’s not fool ourselves about who is running Russia—we have human rights abuses on a gross scale. We have Larisa Arap, a young activist in a psychiatric institution, a regression back to the punitive psychiatry of the old days. We have the murder and bashing of activists outside the Angarsk nuclear facility where Australian uranium will be going. That might be all right for Senator McGauran, it might be fine for Senator Cash and Senator Birmingham, but I do not think it is all right for antinuclear activists to be bashed and killed outside a facility to which Australian uranium would be going.

Furthermore, NGOs in Russia are being suppressed; alternative political parties are being suppressed. Khordokovsky remains in jail throughout the Duma elections. Why? It is to suppress the democracy movement in Russia. You only have to look at what has gone on in Chechnya and in Georgia. We know now the Russians are supplying passports at a great rate in the Crimea. What an irony it is, 100 years after the First World War caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in that region, that we have the Russians sending in passports in huge numbers in order to later justify an armed incursion into the Ukraine, which is where this is headed. We all know that is where this is headed.

So to be suggesting that this is somehow an unadulterated good deal is ridiculous. We know about human rights oppression, we know about aggression, we know about how the secret services in Russia are disposing of people in all kinds of institutions and in other ways. What about the journalists? It is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists, who are assassinated for any kind of adverse reporting. We have Gregory Pasko, who was jailed for five years because he dared to report that the Russians were dumping nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean—he was jailed for that. Apparently, the coalition thinks that that is fine; that is transparent. We are not worried about journalists being assassinated; we are not worried about journalists being jailed for reporting what is happening to nuclear waste. We are not worried about what the Russians are doing in Iran. We are not worried about suppression of NGOs, suppression of the democracy movement, jailing of people like Khordokovsky—he was jailed not for tax fraud but because he was financing the democracy movement in Russia.

We have a globally dangerous situation with the Russians at the moment. The Europeans know it, the Americans know it; everybody is now discussing what to do about Russia. This is not a trivial matter in the manner that it has been trivialised by the coalition today. I find it completely offensive that Senator McGauran referred to people giving evidence to this inquiry as ‘fruitloops’ for example, or that people are suggesting that there is nothing in it when we talk about the inadequacy of the safeguards.

Professor Rothwell from ANU stated before APEC last year that, at the very least, we could have signed the additional protocol. That would have been an improvement in the safeguards. The additional protocol was not even required by Prime Minister Howard at the time. Furthermore, the Europeans put human rights into every treaty with the Russians so that in the event that human rights are abused they can then question whether the treaty proceeds. Prime Minister Howard was not prepared to put human rights into that treaty because he knew, as we all knew, that human rights are being abused in Russia every day. That should have been in there at the very least and it was not.

I might also point out to the coalition that on his way to Australia for APEC, President Putin called in to Indonesia. Why? Because he wanted to sign a new weapons arrangement with Indonesia whereby the Russians will provide the Indonesians with weapons. He made it clear to the Indonesians that that would not be conditional on human rights. Why? Because the Indonesians need to access weapons and they do not want to be scrutinised on the human rights abuses that might be going on or on however they want to handle their own domestic affairs. That should be a very clear signal to Australia that sending uranium to Russia, where you cannot verify what happens to it because the IAEA is not funded to be able to do that, is a dangerous undertaking. Even if you do send it to a facility which you could guarantee it will displace Russian uranium into the weapons program to be supplied overseas to reactors like that in Iran.

This was obvious last year and I am interested to know why the government has changed its perspective because at APEC the Labor Party was right there with Prime Minister Howard saying how fabulous President Putin’s deal was and fawning along with the rest of them. However, I am at least pleased that what has gone on in Russia has come across the radar of the Labor Party and that the government now realises just how dangerous this regime is. I appreciate the fact that this treaty is now on hold.

I think it is really important that the condition that no treaty should proceed without it being conditional on human rights and the advancement of democracy is added to our treaties. That is what the European Union put in their treaties and that is what we should put in our treaties if we are serious about being anything other than a greedy country seeking to maximise the income from our resource extraction regardless of human rights and democratic outcomes. I would like to see that as an additional condition when the government reconsiders this particular arrangement. I think the photograph of Prime Minister Howard shaking hands, the great agreement, with President Putin—the great reception in Australia—will come back to haunt this country and particularly to haunt this coalition for a long time into the future.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been attracted to this debate on the treaties committee’s report by the comments made by my colleagues on the impact of this treaty, particularly as it relates to uranium. I repeat Senator Birmingham’s question to the government: why was it that uranium from three mines was good but uranium from four mines was bad? I have yet to have anyone from the government explain that at all. I am also curious to have Senator Milne explain her views to me—because she is the expert; she told us that! We are very grateful that Senator Milne is in this chamber, because we do benefit from her great expertise in these areas—because she told us she had great expertise!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lucky she told us; we wouldn’t have known otherwise!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right, Senator Abetz.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t I believe you when you say that?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I should say for Hansard’s benefit that I intend great irony when I say that, because Senator Milne suggests that none of us has a view that is worth having; she is the expert. I hear her and her colleagues in the Greens talking all the time about greenhouse gas emissions and the carbon exuded into the climate. One way that you could seriously address that is by nuclear power, which has no carbon problems, yet for some reason Senator Milne, who tells us the world is about to come to an end, does not want to even consider a source of power that is clean of carbon emissions. Senator Milne prefers to shut Australia down. I just think of what might happen to all those working families that the government spoke so much about if they are captives of the Greens’ position on these issues. I wonder what will happen to all the miners up in the Bowen Basin coalfields, up where I come from, if the government are forced into a position by the Greens in this chamber. It could cause huge problems for working families and, indeed, for our whole economy. I wish that Senator Milne and her colleagues in the Greens could explain to me why uranium is not worth looking at. I am not saying we should do it, but it should be part of the consideration of the problems we are having with greenhouse gases.

I know the Labor Party has been all over the ship with uranium, and I know the leader of the AWU in Queensland, Mr Bill Ludwig, has been very vocal in calling for some sensible policy on uranium. I see some of my colleagues from the Labor Party in the chamber, and they might be able to explain to me exactly what the government’s position is on uranium, because I know that some of the very powerful unions, particularly in my state, have a view that is contrary to that of the government. We all know that this government is where it is through that massive campaign of the unions at the last election. What was it that they spent on supporting the government—about $40 million?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than the major parties combined.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than the major parties combined. That is what the unions spent to get Mr Rudd where he is at the moment, so he and the rest of the government are totally beholden to the union movement. That raises this question of what the government is going to do about uranium, because in my state of Queensland there are vast uranium resources. The AWU, led by Mr Bill Ludwig, has been, as I say, very vocal in asking the government to have a more sensible policy than it currently has. I notice Senator Sterle in the chamber, and I hope he will be participating in this debate, because he can tell me what the Western Australian Labor Party position is. We know the former state government in Western Australia had a very odd policy on uranium mining, but perhaps Senator Sterle could indicate to us what the federal Labor government’s view is on this issue at the present time.

This treaty that has been spoken about today is very relevant to Australia’s position in the world, it is very relevant to the climate change issues we continue to talk about and it is also very relevant to Australia’s ongoing prosperity. As I think Senator Birmingham mentioned, China seems to be okay to trade with but India is not when it comes to uranium. One wonders why this could be. Perhaps it is Mr Rudd’s fascination with China that allows him to make that distinction, but it is one that is very interesting and very germane to the treaty report before the chamber at the moment.

Question agreed to.