Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Faulkner. In today’s first national security statement to the parliament, the government identified climate change as a ‘most fundamental national security challenge’. Why then does the government refuse to export uranium to India under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, which can both cut India’s greenhouse emissions and meet 35 per cent of its future energy needs?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing I should say in relation to the national security statement is that it sets out the full range of national security challenges from defence and domestic security to more non-traditional threats like terrorism and energy security. It also outlines the institutional framework within which the government determines our national security policy settings for the future. In relation to the specific element of the national security statement that Senator Coonan raises, let me say that building resilience to climate change is critical for highly vulnerable countries in our region. The Niue Declaration on Climate Change commits forum members, including Australia, to continue to develop ways of combating climate change which are tailored to the Pacific. Working with— (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the United States has established a safe basis on which to sell uranium to India and that today’s national security statement says that the US is fundamental to our security interests, how can the government continue to deny the sale of uranium to India?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Coonan would be aware, the government has had a consistent approach on this particular issue, which I have spoken about previously in this chamber. The government’s approach has been clear. It has been consistent. It is not affected at all by the commitments that the Prime Minister announced in relation to our national security statement. The national security statement clearly reinforces the importance of a robust— (Time expired)

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question even though the minister is clearly unable to reconcile the questions I have already asked. Given the key issues identified in the first national security statement, including the importance of India, the importance of climate change and the fundament strategic importance of the United States, isn’t the government’s policy on uranium exports to India and the need to combat climate change hopelessly conflicted?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, our position is not conflicted. Our position on uranium exports is clear and consistent. We will only allow exports to countries which are signatories to the NPT. Therefore, as I have said on so many other occasions, India is not eligible to receive Australian uranium. As Senator Coonan knows, Australia supported the IAEA-India Safeguards Agreement at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in August. It joined the consensus on the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This is a consistent, strong and appropriate approach for the government to take and it is reinforced by our national security statement. (Time expired)