I

, Office of the

* -Ã¢ÂÂ   Deputy Leader of the Opposition

SPEECH BY THE DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, TOM UREN, AT A  PUBLIC MEETING AT WARRINGTON - 29 November 1977

.  The great i-arguments -a-tjains tLur&nijum. ; Â·  mining - and export:>are* -3" - . '  t  Â·. - -  *- y >  Ã¢ÂÂ  r ^ v - - f . '  * .  , Â·

m o r a l  ; a r g u m e n t s ; ,  ÃÂ± -! *; , . . ; ; , Â· Ã¢ÂÂ   . Â·.

.  There is the very serious danger- t h a t  will flow from-the use

of unsafe storage processes for uranium waste. Closely linked to

this is the problem of finding effective safeguards against the

proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There has been a lot of propaganda about a technique called

'  glassification.1

In effect ..this puts nuclear wastes into glass rods which

can be stored. Mr Fraser has claimed that this technology exists

and solves the waste problem. This argument is false. Wastes

straight from conventional nuclear reactors cannot be glassified.

Glassification which only exists on a laboratory scale^ can be applied

only to enriched and reprocessed uranium.

The nub of the argument is that the Australian Government has

made a firm commitment against reprocessing. This is the basis of

dilemma over his policy.

He is committed both to non-proliferation and to storage

of waste based on glassification. The point is that he can't have

both of these things. If he wants non-proliferation then he can't

have glassification which depends on re-processing and therefore

on certain proliferation. If he insists on glassification, then

he rules out non-proliferation and accepts the rapid move to the

plutonium economy, a step which the Government says it rejects in

very strong terms.

This is the fatal flaw which destroys the whole of the

Government's uranium safeguards policy.

It is a flaw which the Government has failed to acknowledge.

Indeed it has been deliberately misleading in its statements on

these issues. I challenge the Prime Minister to make a plain  Parliament H ouse. Canberra, A.C.T. 2 6 0 0  /2

2

Ã¢ÂÂ¦

.^statement and say what he intends to do to resolve the impossible

position of his Government on safeguards and on storage of nuclear

waste.

Th e r e : are .  other-grave morale problems.J d.-irtkedr,with=-the;>miriing..ii-.j

and ^export .Of uranium; Ã¢ÂÂ   : >  .  ;

Foremostoate vthe- rightÂ§""Ã¢ÂÂ  Of therAbdrigihalnpeoplesIof ArnhemteMfi .

Landy-  particularly> rights--  to their^tribalKLands-Â·and~sacred-” "sitest-?r

There is the very great threat to the environment in a unique part

of Australia and of the world heritage.

These are extremely important issues and they must not be .

neglected. ;'

Tonight I want to direct most of my remarks to the economic

aspects of uranium mining and export.

The Government and the big mining companies have created the

myth that uranium will bring an economic bonanza to Australia.

They have painted uranium as the saviour of the Australian economy

as our farming and manufacturing earnings dwindle in the decades

ahead. I want to expose the falseness of this argument and show that

uranium will not bring any benefit to the mass of the Australian people.

It will benefit only a very small section of the corporate sector,

mainly; -  mini mg cgmpariies i :  1 inkedx ve rye c lo s edÂ· y eto va s' bat r a ns na tm on ala a ÃÂ®

groups v p ^ F u r E h e & i t i ^ i 111] cieateaVerycsgripusoprobl'emso:for-fouf.gitiralr.al

andamdnufacturingiindustries4 andasd aqgr^ya^eathe.Ub'irehdvtd.r-Mgheirb-agfdaiid

higher'slevelsadf uhemployihent;v nt- -  -  .  .  ;  r

I want first to look at the argument that there is a very

strong demand for our uranium and that this will bring large export

earnings.

The international energy market is a very complex one. I don't

pretend to be an expert On energy. But on the question of demand

for uranium the trend is clear cut. Demand is falling very rapidly

and it will continue to fall. The reason for this is a sharp downturn

in the capacity of nuclear power stations which will start operating

during the mid-198 0 1s . The first Fox Report gave an estimate of the

capacity of nuclear power generation among OECD countries in the

world's major industrial nations for the year 19 85.

This was the year when it was expected that Australian uranium

mines would be reaching full production. It was also the year in

which the installation of a new wave of nuclear power stations would

reach a peak.

.  ../ 3

According to the Fox Report the estimate of t h e .  nuclear Ã¢ÂÂ

capacity of these countries was 400 million kilowatts by 19 85. 5

This was a very significant reduction from the figure of 600 million

kilowatts which was the estimate in 19 70.. .

By May this, year the figure was down by 250 million kilowatts.

Now OECD officials are saying off-the-record that the figure is down

to 225 million kilowatts. .

In s h o r t , the projected capacity fell by a third between 1970

and 1976 when the First Fox Report was released. In the past year it

has fallen very sharplyÂ· by almost 50%. The OECD countries account

for almost all of the world's potential nuclear capacity outside

Russia and Eastern Europe. They are the countries which would be

Australia's customers if uranium mining and export w ent ahead.

Quite clearly, this very sharp revision of capacity must mean

equally sharp revision of demand for uranium. According to figures

given by Mr Anthony when the Government's uranium policy was announced

the estimated world demand for uranium would be 69,000 tonnes a year

by 1985. According to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, world

production of uranium would be around 69,000 tonnes a year by 1985

even if there were no Australian production. .

Even without Australian uranium^world demand could be supplied

from other m i n e s . :

This means that even if demand had remained h i g h , Australia

would have faced very stiff competition in finding a market for its

uranium. On the estimates of capacity which I have just given, the

world demand for uranium by 1985 is likely to be no more than 47,000

tonnes a year.

If the downward trend in capacity of the international nuclear

fuel cycle continues, then so will demand continue to fall. Even on

the best interpretation, there is likely to be over-supply of around

50% in the world market for uranium by 1985.

This would be the time when Australian production would be

climbing to a peak if mining went ahead.

It raises two prospects for the miners of Australian uranium.

They may not be able to get a market because of a continuing decline

in world demand. Or alternatively, if they do find markets the

excess of supply over demand will force prices down to a very low

level. In these circumstances the miners would scale back production

and reduce labour even further in a very capital intensive industry.

The other way they would cut costs would be to mine without any regard

for environmental protection. '

4

.  ^yyyfrii

This is the stark reality of the economics facing Australia’s .

uranium m i n e r s . It is a picture which has been grossly distorted by.

the Fraser Government and by the mining companies. They have based

the profitability of industry on estimates of potential capacity and

demand which are very much inflated. '

There is no sign of any reversal in the extension of the Â·

nuclear power industry. All of the indications are that the industry .

is contracting. One of the world's biggest suppliers of nuclear

power stations, General Atomic Company, has got out of the business

of building reactors. Â·  :  ,  .  .

In the process it has written off losses of hundreds of .

millions of dollars.  . .  This is one symptom of the problems facing the

international nuclear power industry. Another is the rapid growth

of industrial safety problems deriving from nuclear power stations. .

An example i s .the nuclear power plant at Coblenz in West

Germany where technical problems have stopped construction.

Throughout the world the major industrial countries are having second

thoughts about nuclear.power stations. Many nuclear stations

planned during the nuclear power boom of the- late 6 0 's and early

7 0 's have been abandoned pr postponed. Countries which even a few

years ago were strongly in favour of nuclear power are n o w m u c h  more

cautious. An example is Denmark which recently deferred a decision

on introducing nuclear power until 1981 at the earliest. The same

pattern in emerging throughout the world, particularly in the United .

States and J a p a n . It is also a fact that world consumption of energy

is levelling out. .  .  .  .  .

Growth in total energy consumption and of electricity in

particular has been very small in industrialised countries in the

past two y e a r s . .  .

In these circumstances, it is becoming more and more possible

that traditional sources of energy supplemented by new technology

can supply the world's energy requirements without a massive switch

to nuclear power. .

It is completely false to paint Europe and North America as

energy starved countries waiting for their salvation on Australia's

uranium. There is a wealth of evidence to show that the prospects

for Australian uranium on the world market are v e r y ,gloomy indeed.

I want in conclusion to expose another myth - the myth that

uranium mining will bring very great benefits to Australia's /5

domestic economy and to its workforce. Ã¢ÂÂ

‘  Â·  t  ÃÂ.’  '   Most of the comment on the economics of Australian uranium  mining comes from the prp-mining lobby, which claim vast economic ’   benefits for Australia. If by "Australia". ,  they mean themselves  then their claim is correct.  If they mean all Australians, then they ,   are very clearly wrong. .  .  ' The Fox. Inquiry gave an accurate assessment of the economics  or uranium mining. It said that the contribution to net national  income would be relatively small.  .  ; Optimal development of all Australia's uranium "would probably  result in an increase of 0.1% of national income in 1980-81, . rising to about 0.5% in 1990." Thereafter it would decline. : It said that the contribution of mining to employment opportunities  would be even smaller. .  And it said that the return on capital  invested would be quite large. This puts the finger on who will  benefit from uranium mining. Uranium mining will not s o l v e , even  partially, the unemployment problem which is the key issue of this  election. Fox says the employment benefits of the Ranger mine are .   limited. After a two year construction p h a s e , 250 men would be  required to produce 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake per annum. The new mining development is highly capital intensive. Even,  if.all of the mines planned come into production the total workforce  will be very small. . .  Ã¢ÂÂ   . The mining lobby says that the indirect employment benefits  are much greater. Given the remote locations of the proposed mines  this is highly questionable. The machinery for the mines will not  be made in Australia; it will be imported. .  . On the other hand, the indirect employment costs of uranium  mining will be great. This is because of the adverse impact of the  mining sector development on the rural and manufacturing sectors. .  Mining requires vast amounts of capital; in part, this capital is redirected from other sectors of the e c o n o m y , particularly from  Australia's hard-hit manufacturing industry. The adverse effect on other sectors of the economy also comes  through the balance of payments position, because uranium is only  mined for export. The mining lobby make great claims that Australia's  uranium.is worth $30 billion in export e a r n i n g s .  . .  .  ./6 6 If their claim is true it will mean a massive imbalarice in ‘ Australia's trade with the rest of the world. And the rules .of 'Ã¢ÂÂ¢the .   game are that an imbalance must be brought into balance. The major .   industrial countries who/buy the. uranium would demand that Australia  raise its imports, to restore trade b a l a n c e . And those imports would be imports of manufactured goo d s . A l s o , when exports -stay higher than Â·  imports there is pressure for .  . .  ; revaluation of the currency. In turn this would damage the rural  exports industry and domestic manufacturing would suffer as competing  imports become cheaper. From any a n g l e , mining development means more problems for ;   the manufacturing and rural sectors. The so-called benefits of a  relatively few jobs in the capital intensive mining industry are far  outweighed by the high cost of jobs lost in manufacturing industries. If we are ever going to come to grips with the long-term  structural unemployment problems in Australia, a commitment to . uranium mining and export can only be an. obstacle. . It is important that the facts on the. economics of uranium be .   set out clearly. The examples I have given could be multiplied many  times. There i s .a very great mass of evidence on these questions and  I have had to be selective. I have pushed these.arguments on the .   economics of uranium mining for almost t w o 'years n o w . It is encouraging  that a t .the weekend the distinguished American economist Daniel  Ford confirmed that world demand for uranium is declining very rapidly. He was supported by .a leading Australian scientist, Professor  Charles Kerr who was a.member o f 'the Fox Committee of Inqu i r y . Professor Kerr said that world demand had shrunk since the Fox  Committee presented its first report. These authorities have nailed  the lie of the Government that uranium is essential both for the world  economy and the Australian economy. . The economic arguments against uranium mining add force to ÃÂ¿ÃÂÃÂ"  moral stand on this vital issue. The Fraser Government has been very  deceptive and dishonest in the presentation of its case for uranium  mining and export. It is extremely important to look beyond the  claims of the Fraser Government and the mining lobby and to present a  sober and accurate picture of what uranium mining and export means  to the Australian economy.. This much we owe to the Australian people  who are making a commitment relating not only" to their own. future w e l l Â­ being but also on behalf of future generations of mankind.

Most of the comment on the economics of Australian uranium

mining comes from the prp-mining lobby, which claim vast economic ’

benefits for Australia. If by "Australia". ,  they mean themselves

then their claim is correct.  If they mean all Australians, then they ,

are very clearly wrong. .  .  '

The Fox. Inquiry gave an accurate assessment of the economics

or uranium mining. It said that the contribution to net national

income would be relatively small.  .  ;

Optimal development of all Australia's uranium "would probably

result in an increase of 0.1% of national income in 1980-81, .

rising to about 0.5% in 1990." Thereafter it would decline. :

It said that the contribution of mining to employment opportunities

would be even smaller. .  And it said that the return on capital

invested would be quite large. This puts the finger on who will

benefit from uranium mining. Uranium mining will not s o l v e , even

partially, the unemployment problem which is the key issue of this

election. Fox says the employment benefits of the Ranger mine are .

limited. After a two year construction p h a s e , 250 men would be

required to produce 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake per annum.

The new mining development is highly capital intensive. Even,

if.all of the mines planned come into production the total workforce

will be very small. . .  Ã¢ÂÂ   .

The mining lobby says that the indirect employment benefits

are much greater. Given the remote locations of the proposed mines

this is highly questionable. The machinery for the mines will not

be made in Australia; it will be imported. .  .

On the other hand, the indirect employment costs of uranium

mining will be great. This is because of the adverse impact of the

mining sector development on the rural and manufacturing sectors.

.  Mining requires vast amounts of capital; in part, this capital

is redirected from other sectors of the e c o n o m y , particularly from

Australia's hard-hit manufacturing industry.

The adverse effect on other sectors of the economy also comes

through the balance of payments position, because uranium is only

mined for export. The mining lobby make great claims that Australia's

uranium.is worth $30 billion in export e a r n i n g s .  .

.  .  ./6

6

If their claim is true it will mean a massive imbalarice in ‘

Australia's trade with the rest of the world. And the rules .of 'Ã¢ÂÂ¢the .

game are that an imbalance must be brought into balance. The major .

industrial countries who/buy the. uranium would demand that Australia

raise its imports, to restore trade b a l a n c e .

And those imports would be imports of manufactured goo d s .

A l s o , when exports -stay higher than Â·  imports there is pressure for .  . .  ;

revaluation of the currency. In turn this would damage the rural

exports industry and domestic manufacturing would suffer as competing

imports become cheaper.

From any a n g l e , mining development means more problems for ;

the manufacturing and rural sectors. The so-called benefits of a

relatively few jobs in the capital intensive mining industry are far

outweighed by the high cost of jobs lost in manufacturing industries.

If we are ever going to come to grips with the long-term

structural unemployment problems in Australia, a commitment to .

uranium mining and export can only be an. obstacle. .

It is important that the facts on the. economics of uranium be .

set out clearly. The examples I have given could be multiplied many

times. There i s .a very great mass of evidence on these questions and

I have had to be selective. I have pushed these.arguments on the .

economics of uranium mining for almost t w o 'years n o w . It is encouraging

that a t .the weekend the distinguished American economist Daniel

Ford confirmed that world demand for uranium is declining very rapidly.

He was supported by .a leading Australian scientist, Professor

Charles Kerr who was a.member o f 'the Fox Committee of Inqu i r y .

Professor Kerr said that world demand had shrunk since the Fox

Committee presented its first report. These authorities have nailed

the lie of the Government that uranium is essential both for the world

economy and the Australian economy. .

The economic arguments against uranium mining add force to ÃÂ¿ÃÂÃÂ"

moral stand on this vital issue. The Fraser Government has been very

deceptive and dishonest in the presentation of its case for uranium

mining and export. It is extremely important to look beyond the

claims of the Fraser Government and the mining lobby and to present a

sober and accurate picture of what uranium mining and export means

to the Australian economy.. This much we owe to the Australian people

who are making a commitment relating not only" to their own. future w e l l Â­

being but also on behalf of future generations of mankind.

