LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION  THE HON KIM C BEAZLEY MP

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE, COMMONWEALTH  PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES, SYDNEY.

25 JULY 2006

E & O E - PROOF ONLY

Subjects:     Industrial Relations; Uranium

BEAZLEY:  John Howard has said today that he has not yet finished with  industrial relations changes.  John Howard has not finished with the Australian  people on undermining their industrial conditions.  How can you say that you’re  for a sound economy when you make it impossible for people to pay their  mortgages?  There’s here, a total disconnect in John Howard’s position.  On the  one hand he says it’s good for the economy, on the other hand he undermines  the economy by making it impossible for people to pay their mortgages and  putting families at risk and under threat.  So, John Howard, however, as made  one thing clear: John Howard has not finished yet with the Australian people  when it comes to undermining their industrial conditions.

Now, yesterday I launched a debate inside the Labor Party on changing our  policy in relation to the mining of uranium and re-shifting the focus of it to our  determination to ensure that we conduct our mining in the safest possible way

internationally.

It is possible to be economically responsible in the way in which you administer  the nation, and to be morally responsible internationally in the way in which you  get the international debate to reflect firmly on the need for non-proliferation and

to deal with the safety issues related to uranium.

You can be economically responsible at home and export it, morally responsible  internationally, dealing with proliferation, dealing with safety issues.  Now, that’s  where the Labor Party policy is going to take us.  That is what we’re shifting to  now.

There is an issue and a discussion out there inside the Labor Party on the  number of mines and the basis on which we ought to be approving mines off.

But the real debate here is emerging clearer and clearer - and that is between  the Australian Labor Party, who does not believe, we do not believe there ought

to be nuclear power and enrichment in this country - and John Howard who  believes there should be.  That is a very clear-cut line.

I said when I became Leader of the Labor Party that I wanted, firstly, the Labor  Party to stand for the national interest.  And, secondly, for there to be clear  understandable lines between us and our Liberal and National Party opponents.   There’s clear lines between us on industrial relations and now there’s clear lines  between us on nuclear power - an uncluttered debate.  Labor standing for the  national interest, both on exports, and Labor standing for the national interest on  the moral stance we ought to take in the international community.  Over to you.

JOURNALIST: So, you’ll get a bit of fight out of the Left on this.  Will it sort  of eat up a lot of the Party’s energy over the next six or eight months?

BEAZLEY:  Look, I believe the Labor Party is actually very well focused  at the moment.  The Labor Party knows it will have to have a debate on this  issue.  We will.  It will be a debate.  But the Labor Party also now has very firm  commitments and very firm directions.  And that will influence the way in which  everybody participates in the debate.

JOURNALIST: What’s the difference now between yourself and the Liberal  Party?  You spoke about differences.  Have you not eroded that clear difference  that there was in your policy?

BEAZLEY:  No, I’ve sharpened the difference.  You saw the Liberal  environmental spokesman out there the other day actually somewhat embittered  that I’d taken the stance that I had on mines and said: “Oh well, you know, they  accepted that but Mr Beazley should be supporting us”.  That he was saying in  effect, on nuclear power and enrichment.  Well, I don’t support them on that.

That is where John Howard, bereft of a real modernising agenda, has reverted  to.  That happened with John Gorton back when he was Liberal Prime Minister.   It happened with Malcolm Fraser when he was Liberal Prime Minister.  Every  time they fall foul of an agenda, they decide they’re for nuclear power again.  But  this time, Howard is going to pursue it.

At the next election there’ll be a clear choice.  You can vote for the Labor Party,  in which case you know, economically responsible decisions will be taken on  mining.  Or you can vote for the Liberal Party and know that you’ll get a reactor  and know that you’ll get an enrichment plant.  They’re quite clear on that.  If

Howard is re-elected that is what you’ll get.  The division between us is absolute  and clear-cut and not sullied.  At least I don’t want it sullied by an argument about  what is a good mine and what is not.



JOURNALIST: Your changing of policy that is 20 years old in the Labor  Party, what’s to say you won’t change on your enrichment policy?



BEAZLEY:  The Labor Party policy has evolved, let’s get that clear.  It  started 20-odd years ago as a policy against any mining.  It then evolved to a  policy to approve the three mines that were then in existence.  It evolved further

about a decade ago into a policy saying that’d we cop whatever mines were in  place when the Labor Party was elected, because there was an assumption that  additional mines would be approved by Liberal State or Federal governments.

Now, what I’m saying is that’s the wrong debate.  We’re mining uranium.  We  are, courtesy of Roxby Downs, Olympic Dam, we’re going to be the biggest  miners of uranium in the world, the biggest exporters of uranium in the world.   That debate is over.

The debate we now need to move on to is what does it mean for Australia  internationally, in this world where the non-proliferation regime is collapsing?   And what does it mean for Australia, domestically, when we go down the road of  nuclear power and enrichment ourselves?  And I say to that: internationally, we

become the main players, or major players, in ensuring that the non-proliferation  regime is changed and works.  And, domestically, we do not go down the road of  nuclear power, we go down the road of renewables.  And we acknowledge the  fact we don’t have to contemplate that.  We’re lucky we have an absolute huge  supply of coal and gas.  And on that front, what we ought to be doing is making  sure that we become world leaders in clean coal and clean gas technologies.

That’s now an absolute divide between us and the Liberals and a very clear-cut  set of directions for us.  But the Labor Party has evolved in its policy on uranium  mining and this is a further evolution of it.

The Liberal Party has been a bit different.  Sometimes they’ve been in favour of  nuclear power and sometimes they’ve been against.  John Gorton was in favour.   Malcolm Fraser in favour.  They both backed off, they flip flopped on that.  John  Howard was against, now he’s in favour.  He has flip flopped on the question of  nuclear power and enrichment.

So, the people who’ve been back and forwards on this have been the Liberal  Party over the years.  We’ve always be clear-cut on that.  No to nuclear power,  but we have evolved the policy on mining.

JOURNALIST: But is this a flip flop?

BEAZLEY:  We have evolved Labor Party policy.  The Liberal Party has  flip flopped between whether or not we should have nuclear power and should  have nuclear enrichment.

Can I say on nuclear enrichment, because people keep coming at us on nuclear  enrichment and you need to get that absolutely clear.  Look at what Bush and

Putin are doing and look at what the International Atomic Energy Agency is  doing.  They know and understand this: there’s a very direct relationship between  enrichment and weaponisation and that has a fundamental role to play in the  international atomic energy regime.  And Bush and Putin are saying: “No more  enrichment facilities anywhere around the globe”.  The International Atomic  Energy Agency is saying no more enrichment facilities for at least five years.   There’s a reason for that.  The reason for that is they’re worried about  proliferation.  What Bush and Putin have offered is what any power which  enriches should offer, and must offer - they’ve offered to take the waste product  back.

So, if Howard wants to go down the road of enrichment in this country, he has to  be honest and say, “We’re going to take the waste product back”.  Now, I think  you’ll have a thing or two to say to the Australian people about that if that’s the  road he wants to go.

JOURNALIST: This policy, you wanted it debated at the next Labor  Conference.  What are the chances of it succeeding?

BEAZLEY:  I think the Labor Party is a balanced Party and that the  people who are participating in this debate do so in good faith and well informed.   I don’t claim to be the master of every particular argument that goes on inside the  Labor Party.  But I am the Leader and I have to give to my political colleagues a  clear-cut direction on what I think is in the national interest.  I hope, at the end of  the day, my colleagues will see things the same way.  But it’s a democratic Party  and it’s up to them.

JOURNALIST: Anthony Albanese has said that this is wrong, the Labor  Party principle is wrong.

BEAZLEY:  I value Anthony’s opinions.  I’ve been seeking them quite  actively in recent times on this matter.  If you take a look at the comments I’ve  been making for some considerable period of time now, I’ve been making it  eminently clear that I think there needs to be some change here.  Anthony has a  different view on that and that view will be sorted out at the Conference when it  ultimately takes place.

But I think you’ll find there’s a different environment and atmosphere inside the  Australian Labor Party now.  We’re a very well focussed Party on the main game.   We now have clear lines of division between ourselves and our political

opponents and there’s a real determination to win and to conduct ourselves in a  way that makes evidently clear to the Australian people we are a viable  alternative government.  Therefore, I am totally confident that this debate will be  conducted in a manner appropriate for people who wish to conduct the  government of this nation.

JOURNALIST: Do you think it sits well with the Labor of principles?

BEAZLEY:  Yes, it does.  What is the Labor Party about, as the  alternative government?  Firstly, we’re about the sound economic management  of the nation and comprehending the terms and conditions of sound economic  management.  But we also understand that the national interest is broader than  simply economics.

So, we are also, where it involves a product like uranium, which is not just a  source of power like any other, but has both good and potentially very bad  effects, that we are prepared to take a leading role internationally.  If we’re going  to be a leading supplier, we’re going to be a leading advocate of responsible use.

The proposition I’ve put forward is how we become the leading advocates of  responsible use.  And that should be, to my mind, that should now be the  dominant policy, the dominant consideration in the way in which we pursue  uranium policy.

JOURNALIST: The divisions within the Labor Party, on a percentage wise,  how many people are in favour, how many are opposed, do you think?

BEAZLEY:  Look, I think there’ll be a multiplicity of views inside the  Labor Party and variants of it.  I don’t just simply want to engage my Labor  colleagues on whether or not there’s an additional mine.  I also want to engage  them on exactly the terms and conditions of the safety regime you should put in  place, the approval regime inside the government, the terms and conditions we  should seek internationally for the non-proliferation regime.

We, in the Labor Party, have got an awful lot to talk about this.  I, myself, won’t  be talking about it terribly frequently publicly.  Obviously, in the next couple of  days I am, but I have other fish to fry with John Howard and I am intending very  quickly to move onto what it the nub of the argument between ourselves and the  Liberals and that’s over nuclear power and over enrichment.  So, I suspect in  another few weeks, that’s basically what I’ll be talking about, along with all the  other issues I’ve got with John Howard on industrial relations and the like.  So, I  think this will go inside very internal to the Labor Party.  It will be sophisticated.   It’ll be principled.  There’ll be disagreement, substantial disagreement, but at the  end of the day I’m confident we’ll get the right policy.



JOURNALIST: Howard’s saying you need a debate on nuclear power so  aren’t we mature enough to have that debate?

BEAZLEY:  We’re having that debate.  He has taken one view, I’ve taken  another.  I have taken the view that we are blessed in this country with a huge  abundance of cheap fuel in coal and natural gas.  We are blessed, too, with an  opportunity for great innovation and inventiveness in renewable energies and

that that’s the road we should be going down.  He is saying, “No, don’t go down  that road, go down the road of nuclear power”.  He’s got his arguments, I’ve got  mine.

JOURNALIST: Where’s he said that?

BEAZLEY:  Well, repeatedly he has said that we ought to be giving  nuclear power a go and nuclear enrichment a go.  He’s attacking me all the time  on exactly that subject.



Now, he’s a slippery fellow, Howard.  This is one of the slipperiest politicians the  conservatives have ever produced in this country.  So, he always likes to leave  himself with a bit of flip flop back-out.  But he’s leaving himself with precious few  back-outs on nuclear power.

I would think you would have to say this: were Howard to win the next election,  he would have a mandate for nuclear power.  Were he to win the next election,  he would have a mandate for nuclear power.  We would oppose him rock-ribbed  on it, because we don’t think it’s in the national interest.  But he would assume he  had, and he would argue the toss accordingly.

ends























