Editorial: Uranium should enrich Australia Opinion The Australian

Kim Beazley finally gets it: three mines just aren't enough
PERCEPTIONS of nuclear energy have come a long way since Chernobyl and The China Syndrome. Today about 440 nuclear power stations operate in 32 countries around the globe, providing 16 per cent of the world's electricity. Ten nations, including Sweden, Canada, Britain, the US and Japan, have indicated their desire to increase their nuclear power industries. In Australia, while the construction of domestic nuclear power stations remains controversial, the fact it is being discussed shows how far the debate has come over the past decade. The raucous anti-nuclear protest movement, which could fill CBDs with protesters in the 1980s, can barely occupy a laneway today. Thus in withdrawing his support for Labor's anachronistic "no new mines" policy limiting uranium extraction to just three sites, Kim Beazley is attempting to convince the electorate that Labor is a party concerned about growing the national wealth. No new mines threatens Australia's opportunity to fully take advantage of the resources boom at a time when world energy demand is projected to double by 2050. And in South Australia at least, extractors have for years subverted the policy simply by building roads between digs and treating the various developments as one contiguous mine. Australia is home to an estimated 40 per cent of the world's low-cost recovery uranium, holds 30 per cent of the world's coal trade and has the potential to become the second-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. John Howard had good reason to say last week that Australia has a "massive opportunity" to become an energy superpower. Opposition resources spokesman and left-wing faction member Martin Ferguson, as well as Labor candidate Bill Shorten, deserve congratulations for joining Mr Beazley in recognising that even if nuclear power is not on the cards for Australia, it is for many other countries and that it would be foolish for the nation not to profit from this fact. Speaking in Perth yesterday, Mr Ferguson said, quite correctly: "The world moves on . . . and our policies must change if we are to remain a relevant mainstream political force."

Despite his policy reversal, Mr Beazley could be accused of wanting to have his yellowcake and eat it too. For while he has conceded that Labor's uranium policy is a disaster for a party looking to burnish its economic credentials, the fact is that Mr Beazley still does not appear prepared to fully exploit Australia's vast uranium reserves. He is far less enthusiastic when it comes to enriching uranium, saying the procedure would not take place in Australia were he prime minister. This is bizarre: after all, once you accept uranium mining it is hard to make a moral case against enriching it. And in requiring uranium buyers to be signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Mr Beazley continues to deny India a chance to purchase Australian uranium. Although the Howard Government maintains a similar stance, it is unfair – no matter who is sitting on the Treasury benches. India cannot sign the treaty because it has developed nuclear weapons, yet it has a sterling record of non-proliferation. The US recognised this fact when President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed last March to share nuclear fuel and technology for civilian purposes. Yet because Beijing is a signatory, the Chinese can buy our uranium, even though they have sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, which then on-sold it to North Korea.
Mr Beazley's U-turn will surely horrify apocalyptically minded environmentalists who believe material progress must be sacrificed to appease an angry planet. But the combined influence of concerns about climate change – whether as a natural or man-made process – and rising energy prices due to increased world demand and Middle Eastern instability have completely changed the terms of the debate. Ironically, nuclear power is finally getting a fair hearing in the public sphere specifically because of scare-mongering over global warming. Likewise record high oil prices have provided the world with a de facto carbon tax, one which has thankfully been absorbed by the global economy without too many signs of stress. Politically speaking, Mr Beazley may pay a cost in his party. Much will depend on next year's Labor Party conference, when the no new mines policy will be debated and, if Mr Beazley has his way, discarded. Assuming the party agrees to expand uranium mining, the political battle will then shift to the question of what to do with the stuff. Although initially expensive, facilities to enrich uranium domestically could be operating within five years. Mr Beazley's opposition to enrichment is bizarre, given that adding value to commodities from bauxite to wool has been a cornerstone of Labor policy for decades. The question of uranium mining having been decided, it is here the battle over nuclear energy will take place. And here the Prime Minister and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane have a far stronger case, though the Government's support for enrichment puts Australia at odds with the US. At the week's G8 summit, Mr Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to work together to "allow all nations to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy without pursuing uranium enrichment", though perhaps, as with India, a special case could be made for Australia. Either way, while it is great Mr Beazley has finally recognised uranium's potential, his reticence on enrichment suggests his policy backflip has the potential, as with all backflips, to leave Labor facing in the same direction as when it started – that is, backwards.