Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question without notice is directed to Senator Coonan in her capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the minister aware of comments by the foreign minister yesterday that by selling Australian uranium to India, which has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we can make the world a safer and more secure place? Can the minister confirm that these comments reflect the government’s position on selling uranium to India? Is the minister aware of overnight media reports from Pakistan, another country that has not signed the NPT, which suggests that by exporting uranium to India Australia will help to fuel a new nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India and lead to further nuclear testing? Can the minister now explain to the Senate how creating a new arms race makes the world a safer and more secure place?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Evans for the question. Of course the arrangement that the Australian government would agree to, with appropriate safeguards, is not going to create an arms race. I want to make that point perfectly clear. The supply of uranium to India for peaceful purposes only, if proper safeguards are in place, as we have with China, would certainly not be creating an arms race.

The Labor Party’s position on this matter, if I may say so, appears to me to be both doctrinaire and somewhat illogical. India does have a good non-proliferation track record but has made it clear that it has no intention of joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. To this government’s way of thinking it is worth finding practical ways to bring India into the non-proliferation mainstream, as I said yesterday and the day before.

We note that, when in office, the Labor Party seemed to have no problems with uranium sales to France, for example, before it joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1992. India is a major and a rapidly growing emitter of greenhouse gases. This government has maintained for months now—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Just to clarify and to assist the minister, who said—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, what is your point of order?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did the minister—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, that is not a point of order; you are asking another question.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not put it yet. The point of order goes to the statement that India has a good non-proliferation record. Did the minister mean to say that to the Senate?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Brown. There is no point of order.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have to live in the present. We know that India is a major and rapidly growing emitter of greenhouse gases. It really beggars belief and defies any conventional wisdom when people say that nuclear power is not part of the solution. We have maintained as a government for months now that the consideration of nuclear power has to be part of the solution.

India is the largest democracy in the world and is certainly an influential regional power and an important potential strategic partner for Australia. This government has come to the view that it does not make much sense to be exporting uranium to China and not to India. Supplying uranium, if it can be arranged, for peaceful purposes, and policed for peaceful purposes, and if proper safeguards are put in place—these are all contingent conditions under which this government would consider exporting uranium to India—is something that we think is consistent with Australia’s interests. It is certainly consistent with the broader global interests of how to handle the fact that we have one of the largest, if not the largest, stocks of uranium in the world.

I think it is entirely inappropriate to be anticipating India breaking moratoriums on testing or diverting Australian uranium to non-safeguarded facilities. If we are to export to India we can control the way in which it is supplied. We can certainly control the way in which it is used. We do consider that, in all those circumstances, and the use for peaceful purposes, it is entirely consistent with our own domestic interests and the broader interests of the non-proliferation treaty.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer, although I found it rather confusing. I draw her back to her assertion that the government’s position will not lead to another arms race. I refer her to comments by leading Pakistani political figure Imran Khan, who said the Howard government’s decision to sell uranium to India will encourage Pakistan to spend more on weapons. Didn’t he also state that this would lead to an ‘arms race in the subcontinent which poor people in our countries cannot afford’? How would a decision by Pakistan to divert its resources from helping its poor to building nuclear weapons help to make the world a safer and more secure place?

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to see who Labor goes to as a source of authority for the basis of a question. I know we are a cricket-mad country, but to be basing foreign policy on the comments of a cricketer seriously defies—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, you will withdraw that comment.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that the Labor Party never do the hard work on any of these issues. They never really look at the policy position but always borrow from somebody else. They either agree or take a point of difference simply to be opportunistic. This government has a considered policy on uranium exports to India. We have made it perfectly clear that it is contingent on a number of matters, including stringent safeguards, and is entirely consistent with a responsible attitude to the non-proliferation treaty.