25th July 2006

THE AUSTRALIAN URANIUM CONFERENCE 2006,

PERTH

AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM RESOURCES - IT’S TIME

FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP



MARTIN FERGUSON AM, MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES,

RESOURCES,FORESTRY AND TOURISM





**CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY**

It’s a pleasure to be here today addressing your annual conference - for the  second time.

I don’t think it would be an overstatement to say of my speech a year ago that it  was relatively controversial for the day.

When I read it now I am struck by just how far we have come in the debate about  uranium mining and the global nuclear cycle in such a short time.

There is perhaps no better example than the speech Kim Beazley gave to the  Sydney Institute last night.

Let me first say that noone here today should underestimate the significance of  that speech.

Kim Beazley has fronted up to an issue that no Federal Labor leader has been  prepared to lead on for more than 30 years.

It takes a lot of strength and a lot of leadership to do what he has done - the right  thing, the rational thing, for Australia’s future.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the National Conference in 2007 will stand  behind him and abandon Labor’s “no new mines policy”, at the same time  strengthening the safeguards on both mining and export.

This is the right and rational thing to do because the truth is Australia is already  the second largest supplier of mined uranium in the world.

By 2013, with the planned Olympic Dam expansion, we will be the biggest  exporter in the world with the biggest mine in the world.

Clearly, the Labor Party’s existing policy on uranium mining is not limiting the  export of Australian uranium.

It is simply favouring incumbent producers.

Now, there are many in the Party who will be disappointed.

None more so than here in Western Australia.

But let me just say that the Premier’s position on this issue is fully  understandable.

Geoff Gallop went to the last election with a clear “no uranium mining” policy.

Alan Carpenter inherited that mandate and he must honour it in this Parliament.

But the world moves on, times change, and our policies must change if we are to  remain a relevant mainstream political force and a credible alternative Federal  government.

Labor’s National Platform on uranium mining will be different after 2007 and the  Western Australian Party will have plenty of time to consider its own policy  position before the next State election.

But the National Platform will no longer constrain it from opening new uranium  mines in this State.

For very good reasons, however, the National Platform will still oppose nuclear  power in Australia, uranium processing and reprocessing in Australia, and the  importation of high level nuclear waste for storage in Australia.

And the Platform will have a lot more to say about mining and export safeguards.

Let me deal first with mining and safeguards.

We know there is now widespread and growing understanding about just how big  Australia’s uranium resources are and how important they are for Australian jobs  and export dollars.

There is also growing awareness that nuclear power is a necessary part of the  solution to global climate change fears.

And Australians are pragmatic - we’ve got it, we should use it.

That doesn’t mean we are ready to dig it up at any cost.

Australians want to know their uranium is mined in safe hands and supplied to  safe hands.

So do I.

And so does the Australian Labor Party.

As Kim Beazley said last night, that is where the debate is today.

It is no longer about how many mines we have.

It’s about the safeguards for peaceful use and it’s about safe waste disposal.

It’s also about leadership.

Australia is used to punching above its weight - in the sporting arena, in the arts,  in international business and in international politics.

In 1988 it was Australia, under the Hawke Labor government, that led the way to  a global agreement preserving the Antarctic forever from human exploitation of  its minerals.

And in 1989, it was Australia, again led by Hawke, which established APEC  (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) in Canberra.

It started out as a consultative forum of twelve economies with a modest program  of sectoral and trade negotiations to promote economic growth.

Today, APEC is the primary organization promoting open trade and economic  cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

And it is Australia which has just been chosen to co-chair the international post-2012 framework for global climate change.

We can lead the world on nuclear non proliferation too.

As Kim Beazley said yesterday Australia has no greater international obligations  and no greater international opportunities than those granted by our position as a  nuclear supplier.

The world is threatened by the collapse of the existing non proliferation regime  and we must do everything within our power to prevent that.

Labor’s policy will have three simple tests.

The first test - accept the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty).

The second test - accept the world’s strictest safeguards on the peaceful use of  uranium.

The third test - join a new diplomatic initiative against nuclear proliferation, to be  led by Australia, and including a review to strengthen the NPT.

That is where our efforts need to be focussed.

On working with the United Nations (UN) and our allies to exercise the leadership  needed to get the NPT back on track and provide a coherent international  framework for the future peaceful use of uranium and nuclear technology.

And that takes me to the issue of processing.

Under the NPT regime, there is nothing illegal about any country having  processing or reprocessing technology.

Yet the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is one of  the most difficult and important steps towards making a nuclear weapon.

If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decided to break away from its non  proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon capability could be within reach in a  short time.

That is what the world is frightened of in Iran.

And as the UN struggles to hold Iran to account under the NPT and the IAEA  (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards regime, it has never been  clearer that the NPT must be reviewed to make it more relevant to today’s issues  and more effective in the modern world.

We don’t want rogue nations processing uranium.

It is very disappointing that so few nations supported Mohammad El-Baradei’s  (Head of IAEA) proposal for a five year moratorium on the enrichment of uranium  and production of plutonium at the last NPT Review Conference in May 2005.

Unfortunately Australia was one of the many and not one of the few.

And that is the difference between John Howard’s Australia and Kim Beazley’s  Australia.

John Howard’s approach to the nuclear cycle is “no holds barred”.

But Kim Beazley will get the balance right.

The Labor Party will stop to think about national security, global security, the  safety of workers, protection of the environment.

Labor’s position on enrichment is clear.

There should be no new uranium processing or reprocessing facilities anywhere  in the world until there is a review of the NPT and a proper international  regulatory framework.

And that includes Australia.

The National Platform will be unchanged.

Clearly, any debate about uranium processing in Australia is futuristic.

It will take years to get an international framework in place, but getting that  framework should be our national priority today.

And just as Australia should use its position as a leading uranium supplier to  support global non-proliferation efforts we should be a driving force for major  improvements in nuclear safety, including safe waste disposal.

Last night, Kim Beazley proposed extra safety and environmental controls on our  uranium exports.

None more important than a requirement for nations importing Australian  uranium to adopt world’s best practice nuclear safety standards - especially in  their nuclear power plants.

But to be a credible force in engaging with the world we have to have a strong  nuclear science and engineering capacity.

It is more important than ever for us to elevate our research and development  efforts in nuclear science and technology.

Just as we are recognizing that to address both energy security and climate  change we must accelerate the development of renewables and clean coal  technologies, we have to recognize that nuclear technology is equally important.

After a period of 25 years when not only Australia, but the rest of the world, let its  nuclear skill base decline, there is a serious shortage of skilled people at the  same time global demand for reactors is at unprecedented levels.

It is critically important that Australia has the capacity to understand the  technology being deployed on its doorstep in the Asia Pacific.

We can only engage with the region to make sure that the nuclear power  industries on our doorstep are safe if we have a skilled scientific community that  knows and understands the technology being used.

How safe it is, how efficient it is, how it should be regulated, and how to safely  operate it.

And of course it can only be in our national interest to have the knowledge and  capacity to engage with our energy trading partners and advise on the  deployment of ever safer and more efficient nuclear technology.

Australian scientists and engineers have a proud history in nuclear technologies  just as they have in solar technologies.

Synroc is a case in point.

For more than 25 years, ANSTO has been researching and developing synroc -  a ceramic waste form which has been specially designed for the immobilisation  of high level radioactive waste for millions of years.

Our role in waste disposal is to continue to develop that technology through  ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and to take it  out into the world.

This great Australian technology is now being developed to manage plutonium  residue at the Sellafield site in the UK.

Australia’s role in solving the world’s nuclear waste disposal is as a developer  and supplier of technology, like synroc.

It is not our responsibility to take back the world’s nuclear waste.

The answer is looking John Howard in the eye.

Rebuilding Australia’s nuclear science and technology capacity, developing  synroc, keeping our international lead in nuclear waste technology development.

These are today’s priorities, but John Howard wants to have a debate about  nuclear leasing and taking the world’s high level nuclear waste.

At the same time, he cannot deliver a national repository for Australia’s low and  intermediate level waste.

Labor’s position on high level nuclear waste is clear.

The Platform remains unchanged.

We will not import high level waste from overseas.

We will export nuclear waste technology to the world.

The logical focus for rebuilding our nuclear capacity is ANSTO where facilities,  equipment and knowledge are already concentrated and highly specialized.

In March I advocated the establishment of a post graduate nuclear technology  school under the auspices of the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and  Engineering (AINSE), a cooperative venture between ANSTO and all the  Australian universities.

I’m pleased to say that AINSE is in fact considering the creation of an elite school  of nuclear science and engineering.

This is a step in the right direction and one which your industry would be well  served to consider in partnership with ANSTO and the universities in much the  same way as the coal and power industries have responded to resource clean

coal research and development.

Finally let me turn to nuclear power in Australia.

The fact is Australia doesn’t need nuclear power.

We don’t need John Howard’s inquiry to tell us that.

We have plenty of low cost coal, gas and renewable energy sources.

On the east coast, electricity out of Queensland costs 2.8 cents a kilowatt hour.

Nuclear power simply can't compete with that.

But many other countries are not so lucky.

For them, nuclear power is a fact of life.

Thirty five per cent of Europe's electricity comes from nuclear reactors, including  Sweden, Finland and Germany.

These are nuclear countries, but they are also noted for their commitment to  renewables.

By contrast, John Howard wants a nuclear nation, but he’s written off  renewables.

John Howard’s nuclear inquiry is just an excuse to do nothing on the critical  energy issues facing us right here and now.

At a time of record petrol prices - hurting all Australians - no issue is so  important as reducing our reliance on foreign oil and developing more of your  great Western Australian gas resources to supply clean diesel for the nation.

But where is John Howard on these issues?

Missing in action, diverted on a nuclear inquiry, ignoring the decisions he needs  to make today for Australia’s future.

Labor’s position is clear.

Nuclear power is not needed in Australia.

The Platform will be unchanged.

The future of Kim Beazley’s Australia is in clean coal, gas, and renewables.

And in Kim Beazley’s Australia we will mine uranium in safe hands and supply it  to safe hands.

We will have more mines, more jobs and more exports to responsible countries.

Thank you.









