Senate debates

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Matters of Public Importance

Uranium Exports

3:55 pm

Photo of David FeeneyDavid Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

I always welcome your contributions, Senator Fifield. It cannot be because India has nuclear weapons. We sell uranium to Russia and China, both of which are nuclear powers. Are the Greens afraid that India is engaged in some sort of regional arms race? China is engaged in one of the fastest military modernisations in recent history and yet obviously we continue to engage with China. They surely cannot be worried about nuclear proliferation. India tightly guards its nuclear technologies and has never been found guilty of proliferating those technologies. The Greens' stance only makes sense when we look at it from a pre-2007 perspective when not selling uranium to India was part of an international strategy to bring India into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. But this ended with the US-India nuclear agreement of 2007, which ended the international de facto ban on nuclear cooperation with India. So, although you may not agree with India's decision not to sign the non-proliferation treaty, you can certainly understand their reasoning, which is that it would force the world's largest democracy to abandon their nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the UK, the US, China, Russia and France are all allowed to hold on to theirs, and despite the fact that, on its very own border, Pakistan openly displays its nuclear capabilities. This is a treaty that asks India to have its own national security policy dictated to it by Western powers, and, no, this was not an arrangement that was ever realistic.

Until recently, Australia was the only nuclear supplier in the world that would not deal with India. Not surprisingly, this was offensive to a large trading partner. Last financial year, we exported almost 7,000 tonnes of uranium, with a value of around A$600 million, without adverse health or environmental consequences, but we did refuse to sell uranium to India. We have 33 per cent of the world's commercially recoverable uranium, and we are well placed to capitalise on growing global demand. This is an industry that can provide long-term economic benefits to Australia, including generating employment in regional areas, providing benefits to Indigenous populations and generating export income, yet the Greens still say, 'No, you cannot export to India.'

India's importance to Australia will only grow in the coming years, and a policy of choosing not to sell uranium to India would be an obstacle to developing the strategic and economic partnerships that we want and, indeed, that we need. Make no mistake about it: India will and does have nuclear power, whether the uranium comes from us or from somewhere else. So why not have some say over the process? Why not have some say over the protections and some influence in how uranium is safeguarded? But, once again, the Greens would rather vote for 100 per cent of nothing rather than for 80 per cent of something. That is the reasoning that caused them to vote against the CPRS bills not once but twice in this Senate, and that is the reasoning that saw them stand in the way of any cross-chamber arrangements regarding immigration laws.

The Greens do not think in terms of accomplishing reforms. They would rather Australia had no say, no control and no influence over the nuclear powers in our region. Selling uranium to India is not giving them a blank cheque. Let me be clear: exports will comply with our international legal obligations. But, before any exports of Australian uranium to India can take place, Australia and India need to negotiate and conclude a bilateral safeguards agreement. This agreement would address Australia's stringent safeguards and transparency requirements and would specify that the uranium may only be exported for peaceful, civil nuclear power generation.

The legislative framework in Australia is already in place to cater to this agreement. If there are any specific legal requirements in addition to the legislative framework, these will be addressed in the context of negotiations through our bilateral agreement. The Greens policy on this issue is illogical and it is hypocritical. They seek to damage our wider relationship with India but offer no viable alternatives. They continue with posturing and rhetoric but have no practical solutions.

India is the world's largest democracy, a sobering fact worth remembering. It is a fellow member of the Commonwealth, with a strong philosophical commitment to peace and cooperation. It is a law-governed state, with a free press and a vibrant civil society. It has proven over the decades to be a stable power in an increasingly hazardous region. I not only reject the Greens stance on this matter; I applaud the government for opening our borders and giving Australia a say on nuclear safeguards in India. I also say with some pride that this was a matter that was ventilated and robustly debated at the ALP National Conference. This is a conference that is open to the public—

Comments

No comments