Senator TROOD (Queensland) (7.10 p.m.)—I rise this evening to address the issue of Queensland’s uranium resources and the contribution they may make to meeting the world’s energy needs. Presently there are 441 nuclear reactors in 32 countries. They use 68,000 tonnes of uranium worldwide each year. Nuclear energy currently provides about 17 per cent of global electrical power. However, and I think this is the significant dynamic, this is expected to more than double by 2050. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 35 nuclear plants are currently under construction, with another 25 planned for the future. The world’s second largest energy consumer, China, is planning an astonishing fourfold increase in nuclear power production as an alternative to coal. It is expected to invest something in the vicinity of $US40 billion in nuclear power by 2020, with about 30 new reactors in the pipeline. India is also planning new reactors, 24 over the next few years.
There is a substantial and, it seems, fast growing demand for nuclear power. All the estimates are that existing sources of fuel supply will be insufficient to meet this demand. Even now, uranium production only meets half of the existing demand for fuel, the other 50 per cent being produced from the conversion of highly enriched uranium from obsolete military warheads. The IAEA predicts that these stockpiles will decline and countries will have to look elsewhere for fuel over the next 10 years.
Opening up new reserves of uranium is an obvious solution, and Australia is an obvious place to look. Australia has the world’s largest reserves of low-cost recoverable uranium—somewhere in the vicinity of 40 per cent. But, regrettably, we are not the largest exporter. Canada currently supplies 30 per cent of global demand, despite having far smaller reserves than Australia. Australia has three producing mines: Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia and Ranger in the Northern Territory. They produce around 10,000 tonnes a year, making Australia the second largest exporter of uranium. But we are capable of producing much more.
At present we are burdened by the consequences of the rather bizarre logic of the Australian Labor Party’s three-mine policy, which was introduced in the 1980s. The deal to appease the ALP Left always lacked, to my mind, a compelling rationale and is now well past its use-by date. As Summit Resources noted in a submission to the federal government’s inquiry recently into developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry, the policy:
... dissuades investment in uranium exploration in Australia and further consolidates our competitor countries advantage in the industry.
Fortunately, the federal government has now seen the manifest stupidity of this policy and last month moved to take control of uranium mining processes in the Northern Territory. We can expect that this will open up more reserves for exploitation.
But there are actually tremendous opportunities for uranium mining in my state of Queensland. The Queensland Bureau of Mining and Petroleum has identified 32 uranium deposits across the state. Indeed, four mines in North Queensland could begin production immediately if they were given the go-ahead. Summit Resources, Laramide and Maple Minerals have all recently invested millions of dollars in future uranium mining prospects near Mount Isa, Georgetown and Townsville. If the Queensland mines were allowed to go ahead, it would have several important consequences. It would serve to meet the growing demand for uranium on the world market; it would bring millions of dollars in investment to local communities; and it would bring hundred, perhaps thousands, of jobs to regional Queensland and help to underpin its long-term future.
It is interesting to ask why this is not happening. The answer is fairly straightforward. It is because the Beattie state government refuses to issue any mining permits. On numerous occasions this year the Premier has said that he wants the local emphasis to remain on the state’s abundance of cheap coal and new, cleaner coal-burning technologies. In the state parliament last month the Premier said that expanding the uranium industry is ‘nonsense’ and ‘would undermine the coal industry, which is the subject of billions of dollars in investment and supports jobs, businesses and communities in regional Queensland’. Apparently, we Queenslanders lack the capacity to mine coal and uranium at the same time!
It is true that one of my state’s great industries is the export of coal, but the reality is that most of it is coking coal and is used for the production of steel. Only 33 per cent is thermal and used in the generation of electricity. In any event, the worldwide demand for coal is currently so great that it will be years before we see uranium eating into the demand. Indeed, the International Energy Agency expects a 43 per cent increase in demand for coal over the next 20 years. The Minerals Council of Australia—an organisation not generally known for its inclination to undermine mining activities or the investment therein—does not share the Premier’s view of Queensland’s position. It has said that there is room for both commodities. In a recent media statement it remarked that the opposition to uranium mining was ‘founded in ideology rather than sound science, risk assessment and good public policy’.
If this unwarranted obstruction to the growth of Queensland’s mining industries were not enough, we have the further, rather bizarre twist that the Beattie government is resisting change at precisely the time that the federal Labor opposition is at last reconsidering its commitment to its outdated and unsustainable three-mines policy. So confused is the ALP on this issue that Mr Martin Ferguson, the federal shadow minister for resources, is pressing for change while the shadow minister for the environment, Mr Albanese, opposes it, and Mr Beattie, on the right of the party, supports Mr Albanese on the left. Once again, we see a rather sad Labor Party in a state of policy confusion, to put it generously. Mr Ferguson is quoted as saying:
... it is hard to accept that in a resources state, coal stocks could be exploited to take advantage of the resources boom, but uranium deposits had to be left undeveloped.
I can only agree. What a remarkably sane statement. Here we are facing a global demand for uranium and Queensland could help meet it but the Queensland Labor government is adamant in its refusal to seize the opportunity. It is worth while asking who bears the cost of this rather perverse policy formula. To my mind, there is only one persuasive answer: the people of Queensland. The Queensland Treasury loses but, more importantly, several regional Queensland communities lose jobs, investment, opportunity and security.
I realise that some people have concerns about nuclear proliferation in relation to our supply of uranium, but let me say three things on that point: Australia has the toughest export safeguard requirements of any country—they go well beyond the IAEA safeguards in their integrity; we intend to maintain the integrity of that regime; and Australian uranium is for power generation. Our agreements proscribe the use for military purposes and there are no reported instances of diversion or misuse of material supplied by Australia. It is time the Beattie government acted in the interests of Queenslanders and granted those mining permits.