MEDIA RELEASE

EMBARGOED: Not for publication  before end of  2nd June, 197;

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES ON

2nd JUNE, 1977

By the Acting Prime Minister, Minister for National Resources  and Minister for Overseas Trade - the Rt Hon. J.D. Anthony,M.P ..

URANIUM DEVELOPMENT, NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

AND NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

The future of uranium development and Australian  policy on nuclear safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation  are among the most important issues facing the Government, . the Parliament and the people of Australia today.

Last week the Prime Minister made a major and important  statement on Australian safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation  policy. The Parliament now has before it the final report of  the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

These are questions of supreme importance in  Australia and to the international community.

The energy crisis of the last few years has had '   profound implications for international relations and quite  clearly is of major concern to the future economic growth .   and well being of mankind.  .

The dwindling world supplies of petroleum have made  it abundantly clear that the world must turn to other sources  of energy. President Carter has cry.stalised this problem in .   a dramatic way in his energy policy announcement of 20th April.  The central theme of that policy, which was acknowledged by the  major industrial countries at the world Economic Summit meeting Ã¢ÂÂ

a few weeks ago, is that the world must adjust to the new  realities in energy supply and usage.

If it does not do so then the world economy will be .   faced with precipitate and cataclysmic adjustments in the mid  1980s, the economic ramifications of which will be felt by  developed and less developed countries alike.

Australia is, of course, fortunate in that we are.  well endowed with indigenous energy resources.  Our  contribution and the part we can play in this international  problem, is that of a reliable and stable supplier of.

energy resources to those countries that are obliged to make more painful and difficult adjustments than we ourselves .   will have to bear.

Very clearly the major industrial countries must  turn to an increased usage of coal and nuclear energy to .   satisfy their long term requirements. .

Australia has vast resources of coal and we have  vast resources- of uranium. The responsibility of Australia  to the international community is real and clear.

When it was in office the Whitlam Government clearly  recognised these responsibilities. Our Government also  recognises them.

The use of uranium for nuclear electricity generation  raises very special problems. These were, of course, very * clearly recognised in the reports of the Ranger Uranium .   Environmental Inquiry. These same problems have attracted increased

international interest in recent times. Ã¢ÂÂ   '  - >

(Ã¢ÂÂ

2 .

As the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement Â·   to this Parliament on 24th May there has for example recently  been an important statement by President Carter on nuclear . energy in which he emphasised the need to restrain the spread '   of nuclear weapons or explosive capabilities without foregoing  the tangible benefits of nuclear power. Â·

.  The Government has received the second report of the. Ranger Inquiry.  The Inquiry is of course in that nature of  an advisory body on environmental matters and has made a  number of recommendations to the Government.  '  But .  let me stress  that' ultimately it has to be the Government which will make the  decisions on whether there should be further development.

The Government was elected by the people of Australia  and it therefore has the responsibility for decision-making.

.  The Government, being the Government of Australia,  must take the whole spectrum, of national interests into. -   account in making these decisions. ..

It is not appropriate for me at this stage to comment  in detail on the recommendations of the Fox Inquiry.  There  are, however, a number of issues raised by the Inquiry which  are important to the debate. The importance of uranium in the  world scene is we11-recognised.  It is already important to  the economies of many industrialised countries and it is being Â·   recognised by developing countries as vital to their prospects

for economic growth.

Already over 180 nuclear reactors are in operation,  another 300 are under construction and on order,  plus  nearly 300 more are in the planning stages. A total of nearly  800. ,  .

In spite of the minimal exploration effort compared  with that of other countries, the Alligator Rivers area already  accounts for nearly 20% of the world's known low-cost uranium  reserves.

More importantly in the world energy scene, the .  Ã¢ÂÂ  Alligator Rivers area is the world1s largest uncommitted  uranium province. The development of that resource could  make a similar contribution to Australia as did the development

of the iron ore or coal industries in the 1960s. Naturally  development of these uranium resources would have a much  greater impact on the economy of the Northern Territory.  Such  development would provide a firm basis for Northern Territory

Statehood.

A greater exploration effort would certainly result  in the region becoming even more vital to the world,  to  Australia, and to the Northern Territory.

.  Putting aside these obvious benefits, let's have a look at what the Fox Inquiry itself had to say. The Fox.   Inquiry identified five problems associated with uranium  development. But if said that the most serious danger is the  possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. '  Â·

3 .

In its second report,  the Inquiry set out its Ã¢ÂÂ  attitude, on this issue as follows:  .

'  "We: did not make a recommendation about what Australia .  Â· should do about the danger.  Â·  The risk was apparent and  great, but international relations (including trade,   diplomatic'and defence considerations) were involved and Ã¢ÂÂ    a decision as to the correct strategy had to be made by  those equipped to make it. We know enough of the .

considerations affecting resource strategy to be aware  of its complexity and the impact it can have on world  affairs". .

The Inquiry stated: '  .

"(A) That total renunciation of intention to supply  was not justified, and was undesirable. .  (B).That the options were either to proceed, to supply as soon as practicable or to delay making a decisionÂ· Â·

about supplying for a period of several years. In our  view, a decision on.the options depended largely on  what was deemed to be the best strategy in relation  to the matter of proliferation". .  Â·  '

In other words, the Inquiry outlined the issues, but left it  to the Government to take the final decisions.. These issues  have to be seen in the context of international developments.

I have particularly in mind the initiatives of the '   United States, Canadian and Australian Governments to the  further strengthening of international safeguards arrangements.  There have been extensive consultations between the three  Governments on this matter.  '

The recent initiatives of the Carter Administration  are of particular importance.  President Carter has committed  the United States to the continued development of its program  of light water reactors.  At the same time,  however, the .  United States Government is seeking to restrain the development

of the plutonium economy. It has been made clear that Australia  can play a central role in this area. Â·

Surely there can be no doubt that, if  Australia were to make its uranium resources available,  the strengthening of nuclear safeguards would be Â· ' Ã¢ÂÂ  Ã¢ÂÂ  Ã¢ÂÂ   . . greatly enhanced.  ,  And,  the possibility of premature

development of the plutonium economy, with its implications  for nuclear proliferation, could be avoided. It is only by acting now that we can contribute to long-term global stability.

The recent statement by the Prime Minister on our Â·   policy on safeguards will make a substantial contribution .   towards achieving such stability.

.  Where does the Labor Party stand on the issue? In an  address to the United Nations the Leader of the Opposition -  * reminded the world that the quest for resources was- the oldest  of all the causes of war. .

'  The Fox Inquiry itself said:  .

"It may be that by supplying some countries we Ã¢ÂÂ   . would help to relieve those pressures which can lead to armed conflict, nuclear or non-nuclear".  Â·Â·

But what is the Labor Party proposing, to do? It wants  to withhold uranium from the world thereby contributing to . . a situation which, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition,  can only, lead to an increase in global tension. Not only would

such an attitude by the Labor Party lead to tensions regarding,  resources - it. would also contribute to what President Carter  and many Governmentsi.  including the Australian Government,   are seeking to avoid: Namely, the more rapid development of the plutonium economy with the attendant risk of nuclear  proliferation. .

I was most disturbed at the scare mongering tactics  used by the Honourable Member for Blaxland in commenting on the  Prime Minister's safeguards statement. He rubbished the "   International Atomic Energy Agency. In rubbishing the

International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the Honourable  Member has said that there is an implied reliance in the  Government's policy on IAEA safeguards which, he claims, ,  '  the Fox Inquiry said were next to useless.

Ã¢ÂÂ   I draw attention to the section entitled conclusions  in Chapter 13 of the First Report of the Ranger Uranium  Environmental Inquiry (Page 147). This states:  .

"The Commission recognises that these defects taken  together, are so serious that existing safeguards  may provide only an illusion of protection.. However  we do not conclude that they render valueless the

concept o f .international safeguards. We believe it  is both essential and possible to make safeguards .   arrangements more effective". .

The safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister  does, of course,  go well beyond existing safeguard requirements.  It is directed to achieving safeguards arrangements which are  more effective. It requires conditions of control and use of  Australian uranium over and above just the application of IAEA

safeguards, the task of which is to verify that nuclear  material is not diverted from peaceful uses. These.cover:   careful selection of eligible customers for uranium;  bilateral  agreements with customer countries;  fallback safeguards; prior  Australian Government consent in relation to re-export, enrichment

and reprocessing; physical security. This comprehensive approach  Ã¢ÂÂ   is closely in line with the recent United States and Canadian  policy and it builds on the recommendations of the First Fox Â·  '

Report. .

Of course, one important aspect of the comprehensive ,  safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister is a  requirement for IAEA safeguards. Equally, this is an important  requirement of the safeguards policy recently announced by

President Carter. Like the United States we believe that the

5 .

IAEA, should remain a central element in nuclear .safeguards Â· systems. We will collaborate with the United States and other  countries in further strengthening the IAEA. .  '

I would most sincerely urge the Honourable Member ' for Blaxland, in the interest of mankind, NOT'to rubbish . the IAEA. The policy put forward in the Government's Â· statement represents a practical, reasonable and effective

safeguards regime to seek from countries wishing to import . uranium from Australia under any future contracts. The policy  goes beyond a mere acceptance by Australia of our international  obligations as a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It . constitutes a policy as stringent as that adopted by any  nuclear supplier. It incorporates and builds on the findings  of the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. -

It incorporates the kinds of ideas in relation to safeguards  being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, who, of course,  was quite keen to see uranium developed during his period as  Prime Minister. .  '  Â·  .  '  -

The policy which has been announced provides a .

firm.basis on which we can work with others to strengthen . safeguards regimes in thd world nuclear industry. Our policy  and safeguards arrangements will be kept closely under review . to take account of the future evolution of safeguards.

Let us look at some of the attitudes -  and policies  of the Labor Party and examine them in detail. Despite the  conclusions of the first Fox Report and its recommendations  on Parliamentary debate, the Labor Party pre-empted any debate Â·   and formulated a fixed and unrealistic policy -- so much for  a Parliamentary debate. Like the Government, the Labor Party  has said that existing uranium contracts should be honoured. However, unlike the Government which has not yet made any

final decisions on new mining, the Labor Party pre-empted all  rational discussion on these matters by saying no new mining ' development at all is to take place. I would point out that  the Labor Party has made this statement despite the Inquiry

saying that a total refusal to supply would place Australia .   in clear breach of Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation  of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The most charitable view that I can  make of the Labor Party's attitude is that it has been prepared  by a group of incompetents. .

On the one hand, it says Australia should honour . existing contracts, but on the other hand it says no new  mining developments. I ask: How on earth does the Labor Party expect contracts to be honoured when there is not enough

uranium at the existing mine at Mary Kathleen and in the '   Government's stockpile? Presumably Labor would purchase " elsewhere -- or renege.

I remind the Opposition that its platform says  Labor will work for enrichment of Australian uranium resources  in plants which are located in Australia. i pose a simple Ã¢ÂÂ  questiorehow does the Labor Party expect to be able to enrich ' Australian uranium when it right now says no new uranium mining

developments? .

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has alleged that  this Government was intent on committing Australia to a supplier  role in the western world's nuclear energy industry and that it has  encouraged mining companies to enterÂ·long-term contracts for the. .

supply of uranium including to such countries as Iran. Ã¢ÂÂ   '

6 .

Obviously, the Honourable member was asleep during his three years in Government. Or perhaps he chose to ignore what '  Ã¢ÂÂ  his colleagues were doing. .

I would draw the attention of the House, including  the Leader of the Opposition, to a joint press statement of Â· 2nd November 1974 between the then Prime'Ministers of Australia  and Japan wherein it was said: Ã¢ÂÂ

"Mr. Tanaka expressed his appreciation of the confirmation Â· of supply by Australia to Japan of the contracted 9,000  short tons of uranium..."

Just two days earlier, the then Minister for Minerals and  Energy - the Honourable Member for Cunningham - had the '  ’ following to say in a statement entitled "Northern Territory  Uranium" which he tabled in this House: ,  -  .

"When Australia negotiates further sales, it Â· will do so as a willing seller seeking willing .  .

buyers. IN PARTICULAR, WE WILL-ENSURE THAT OUR '

'  MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS -JAPAN, ITALY AND WEST '  GERMANY - OBTAIN AN EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE URANIUM WE HAVE FOR EXPORT". .

Not long after these two statements were made the then Prime  Minister and now Leader of.the Opposition went on a long tour .   of Europe where he talked about uranium among other things.   Presumably, he found as we do that one of the first" things  that foreign governments, companies, individuals want to Ã¢ÂÂ  talk about - is Australia's uranium resources. Obviously, he "   was successful.

In making the second reading of the Aboriginal  Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill on 16th October 1975, . the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs - the Honourable  Member for Hughes said: .  . .

"International assurances have been provided by  Ministers that Australia will meet the uranium .   requirements of our major trading partners, which  could amount to a total of about 100,000 tonnes

of uranium..."  I repeat: 100,00 0 tonnes. It is intriguing that in alleging ..that  the Government was encouraging sales, the Deputy Leader of the  Opposition referred to only one country - Iran. I deny that this  Government has encouraged mining companies to enter into long-term  contracts for supplying uranium to Iran. -However, I cannot make  this denial on behalf of all recent CommonwealthÂ·Governments.  .1

would remind the House that in March 1975, the friend.and colleague  of the Deputy Leader of theÂ·Opposition,  namely the Honourable Member  for Lalor, visited Iran in his then role of Deputy Prime Minister and  Treasurer. He was accompanied by the then Minister for Agriculture, .   Senator Wriedt. At the end.of their visit, they released a joint

statement with the-Iranians which included the following sentence:

"The Australian Ministers agreed that Ira.n would  be given access to supplies of uranium from Australia  under favourable conditions".  .

7 .

I need add no more to the comments of the Deputy Leader  of the Opposition. This recital of statements tiy Ministers' . Â·   of the Labor Government -- statements of course which would Ã¢ÂÂ    have been taken at their face value by our trading partners -- .

leads me to question: '

Why is it that while in Government Labor adopted  a responsibleÂ· position .whereas now in Opposition, it is not  only irresponsible but it is also incompetent? In office  the Labor Government committed Australia to supply 100,000  tonnes of Ã¢ÂÂ Ã¢ÂÂ¢'Ã¢ÂÂ 'uranium? We have inherited that commitment.  Now

Labor want to walk away - they want Australia to abrogate Ã¢ÂÂ    Labor's commitment to supply 10 0,000 tonnes of uranium-td'Ã¢ÂÂ Ã¢ÂÂ¢our  trading partners.  What new information does Labor have that  the Ranger.Inquiry did not have,  that the Government does .  .

not have - that makes Labor, -  say "no new mining".  '  .

.. I. believe the best way to sum up the position .... presently facing Australia.is by posing, a series of questions.  Is the Australian economyÂ· so strong that we can deny ourselves .   the clear economic benefits that would flow from the mining  and export of uranium? Is our balance of payments so secure  that we can forego the considerable boost which uranium exports  would bring? There are other wider questions of more far- Ã¢ÂÂ   Â·   reaching consequences than .the effects on the Australian

economy. Is there going to be a nuclear power industry around  the world regardless of whether Australia exports uranium? Ã¢ÂÂ    Would a refusal to supply uranium to countries which need  it adversely affect our relations with those countries? Â·  Would .   a refusal to supply create serious tensions? Would we be '

in a better position to influence the course of the world  uranium industry - especially in regard to waste disposal,  to safeguards and to control of materials - if we are directly  involved in the industry ourselves, instead of being' right out  of the industry?

Not only has the Government got to accept its  responsibilities to the Australian people in finding answers .   to these questions.  The Australian people must answer them  in a manner which will be in the best interests of mankind. Ã¢ÂÂ

