PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen I've called this news conference to announce that Cabinet has approved the establishment of a Prime Ministerial Taskforce to review uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia. The Taskforce will be chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, the former managing director of Telstra and a well respected nuclear physicist. It will include five other members, two of them I announce this afternoon, Professor George Dracoulis. Professor Dracoulis is the Professor and the Head of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the Research School of Physical Science and Engineering at the Australian National University and widely recognised as one of Australia's foremost, if not the foremost, nuclear physicist. Professor Warwick McKibbin, well known as an economist on the Board of the Reserve Bank. There'll be two other people who will, I'm sorry three other people who'll be named as members of the task group. We're in the process of establishing their precise availability and their names will be announced tomorrow.
The Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, will support the review, including by facilitating a peer review of the scientific aspects of the review carried out by the task group. The terms of reference are very extensive. They recognise that Australia's energy sector has played a key role in our sustained economic growth, and our capacity to reliably access competitively priced power and optimise the value of our energy resources, has been a major element in our economic prosperity.
Australia does hold up to 40 per cent of the worlds known low-cost, recoverable, uranium reserves. And there is significant potential for Australia to increase and add value to our uranium extraction and exports. A lot of recent developments in global energy markets have renewed international interest in nuclear energy as a technology that might over time meet growing demand for electricity without the fuel and environmental costs associated with oil and gas. I stress over time, I don't expect to have nuclear power stations in Australia within the next two or three years. I do think, however, that we need in an open-minded and as emotionless fashion possible, to have a serious debate about this issue.
I think the mood has changed. I think it's changed a lot from the early 1980s. I've been surprised by the number of environmentalists who have said they are prepared to look again at nuclear power as an energy source. I've always maintained that holding the reserves of uranium that we do, it is foolish to see ourselves simply has an exporter of uranium, which the Government has very strongly supported, subject to satisfactory safeguards, for a very long period of time. I think we should also look at the value-added process, which is principally enrichment. And we should also look at whether nuclear power stations in Australia become economically feasible.
The Commonwealth itself won't be constructing nuclear power stations. They are things that are likely to be constructed by the private sector and therefore in a sense this constant call of some for us to name where the power stations are going to be pre-supposes a large number of things and it does put the cart before the horse and I don't intend to get into that business today or indeed in the foreseeable future.
What this inquiry is about is whether in the medium to longer-term, firstly, more should be done about uranium mining, should more be done about the processing of uranium, the valuing adding process, and is it economically feasible to contemplate the establishment of nuclear power stations in this country. The terms of reference also cover inevitably issues of waste disposal, issues of safety and the like, and one of the additional members of the committee is, let me forecast, to be somebody who is very skilled and experienced in relation to matters of nuclear safety, so that that aspect of the inquiry will be covered. The only reason I am not in a position to name the other three people is that we have to go through the process of establishing their precise availability for the task, and I hope to be able to do that tomorrow.
Now I recognise that this is very much one of those reviews that are, from time-to-time,needed in a country's history to see whether we oughtn't to take a change in direction. My mind remains open. I am not persuaded as yet, although in my bones I think there has been a fundamental change, but I want to see the evidence, and I want to be part of a process of establishing what is good in Australia's longer-term.
I know that the Labor Party and others will run a fear campaign on this. Well let them do it, that will not deter me and it will not deter the Government and I suspect that the Australian public's attitude has changed a bit on this. I think the public is worried about energy security for the years ahead. I think they like the idea but the fact that we've got a lot of coal and natural gas. I think they are aware of our rich endowments of uranium. I don't think they want to have a re-run of our historical experience with wool processing, where we had the best wool in the world, but we had to send it somewhere else to be processed. And I think a lot of them are starting to say well we've got all this high grade uranium, are we just simply going to be a supplier of it to other countries, or should there be an opportunity for Australia to process it? Even members of the Labor Party including I recall Mr Ferguson is suggesting that that is something that we should look at.
So I do want a full and open review, and examination, and debate on this issue. I'm asking the Taskforce to report by the end of this year, so they'll have to put their skates on and work very hard. I don't see any point in year long, 18 month, two-year long inquiries, and in any event some of you would be very cynical about it, recording dates at which say two years from now, and I don't intend to sort of in anyway appease your cynicism.
I am quite serious about having this review. We had a very lengthy discussion today and this is an important examination for Australia. And there are always risks, political risks, in particular in doing something like this but there are political and long-term national costs in sitting on your hands and ignoring reality. And I don't intend to ignore the reality of the energy world in which we live.
We have the rapidly growing economies of India and China, both of which have a veracious appetite for the energy resources of this country. We have growing concerns about the greenhouse gas consequences of coal and gas. But it ought to be said that there's nothing inconsistent with continuing our examination of more environmentally friendly uses of coal and gas, side-by-side with an examination of the potential in relation to uranium and nuclear power.
So I look forward to hearing from this group. I encourage a debate. We'll continue to engage in it and we'll continue to be the side of politics which is willing to put on the table for discussion long-term issues which go to the lasting energy security of this country and not some short-term fix that completely disregards that.
JOURNALIST:
Your resources minister, Mr Howard, said at the weekend the inquiry wouldn't include mining because that debate is over everywhere but in the Labor Party. Why have you included mining in that case?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think what Ian was talking about was whether or not you should have it. There's nothing in this that suggests you shouldn't have it, it's really just a question about certain aspects of it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister in your bones...
PRIME MINISTER:
In my what?
JOURNALIST:
In you bones you talked about...
PRIME MINISTER:
In my bones, yes.
JOURNALIST:
In your bones, could you envisage nuclear power stations say within a decade being operational within Australia and second question, if I may, in terms of the people that you've appointed to this group, you haven't said all the names, but it does appear as though they are all pro-nuclear or very, that they are all pro-nuclear, has the Government weighted the inquiry to come up with a...?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no, we have appointed, well the three people I have named, two of them are nuclear physicists, that's the reason they have been appointed. I mean I would hardly appoint an urban planner to chair the inquiry, I would hardly appoint a social worker to chair the inquiry. Of course I have appointed a nuclear physicist to chair the inquiry because he or she knows something about the technical aspects of the subject.
We are certainly not weighting it and I think you will see when the (inaudible) comes up, when the other names come out, that it hasn't been weighted. But I am not hunting around for portfolio representatives in the sense that, well, if you've got somebody who's a nuclear physicist, you appoint somebody who is totally and single-mindedly and pig-headedly on the record as being opposed to the development of nuclear power. I want people who are expert and also people who are clear headed and open minded about the pros and cons.
I mean you can favour nuclear power stations but have the capacity to say well in my view they are not going to be an economic possibility in Australia for another 25 years. Some people on the committee may well conclude that, others might say that they'd be economically feasible in 10 years, I don't know. The ANSTO Report suggested a much quicker period of time. I have to say, if I could use my bones again, that sounded a little bit optimistic to me. My sense is that we are some years into the future, but precisely because it is some years into the future, now is the time to begin to have the debate.
Now is the time to demonstrate an open mindedness about it. So you asked me can I envisage in my bones or whatever, having them within a particular period of time, beyond saying what I've just said, I am not going to try and hazard a time, I just think that's impossible. And I am not sufficiently well informed about it. This issue, you know, has been off the table for almost a generation. I reminded the Cabinet this morning, fascinatingly enough, that when I was sent by Malcolm Fraser to Europe in 1977 as the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations, it was thought that one of things we might in effect be saying to some European countries who at that time were very interested in nuclear power stations, that if they didn't treat us more fairly in relation to agriculture, we mightn't be quite as accommodating in relation to uranium sales.
Now that's a long, long time ago and that was the late 1970s when nuclear power was a lot more fashionable and people weren't as agonised and torn by it as they were to become in the early 1980s in the wake of the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Now we've moved another generation since the early 1980s and I think there is a whole new attitude on the part of a lot of people, not an attitude that says they are not interested in safety issues, they are not interested in waste disposal issues, they are not interested in all of these things, but they have other considerations.
And for the first time you are getting in this debate, environmentalists who are saying maybe, just maybe, nuclear power is part of the answer. Now that is the sense in which we are setting up this inquiry and why not give ourselves the protection, the luxury, the opportunity of having a proper investigation of it now when we have time, and we have the policy freedom to do so.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard you appear to be a getting out on the front foot, trying to show some leadership with this debate. Would you expect that pending the outcome of the inquiry, you would take some kind of policy on this issue to the next election?
PRIME MINISTER:
It's far too early for me to be thinking about policy for the next election. We are only half way there. There will be plenty of time for policy to be formulated by the Coalition for the next election.
JOURNALIST:
Will this group of experts have, in the scope of looking at the economic feasibility of nuclear power, will this group of experts be able to examine options that would make nuclear more economically feasible, for example, placing a tax on carbon?
PRIME MINISTER:
Look, I wouldn't want to tell them what they can't recommend. They will react to the terms of reference, but they can recommend what they want to, I am not going to start ruling out things they may or may not recommend, I really don't want to do that. They've got terms of reference and they can make recommendations and assessments against those terms of reference.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard for a thorough examination of the feasibility of nuclear power wouldn't it have to include at least a guesstimate of how many power stations will be needed and roughly where they have to be built?
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Coorey, I am not an expert. I will leave those matters to be determined by the committee, I am not going to tell them in advance how to deal with those sorts of issues. I am really not. I know what you are getting at and you do too and I am not an expert, that's what I am appointing this committee to do. We've had a paucity of debate, a dwindling store of knowledge and an absence of any rigour in the whole discussion for a long time now and I think this group will be eminently qualified to deal with those things.
JOURNALIST:
Would it be within their powers to talk of geography?
PRIME MINISTER:
My experience with committees like this is that they take their terms of reference and they normally take a fairly broad, view of their terms of reference, but equally I would be surprised if the committee got into that sort of thing because they would take the commonsense view that they're being asked to talk in the general about the industry and the industry's capacity.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister just back on the economics of this. Are you saying that the Government would be open, if recommendations were made, or findings made, that the only viable way for an industry to spring up would be if it did have Government support one way or the other, are you saying that you would be open to that concept of helping the nuclear industry get off the ground?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our general policy is that we don't normally start an industry up with Government support that is our general policy.
JOURNALIST:
You've supported plenty of industries, coal, renewables, the automotive industry.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, if you are trying to get from me some forward indication that we would subsidise, I am not biting.
JOURNALIST:
Several state governments Mr Howard currently ban nuclear activities in their jurisdictions and several are concerned that the Commonwealth has powers under the constitution to override that in the future. Is that something that the Commonwealth would look at or this Inquiry would look at?
PRIME MINISTER:
I can assure you, I have not looked at the Constitutional position.
JOURNALIST:
But in terms of, will this Inquiry go there because...
PRIME MINISTER:
No the inquiry, the inquiry will look at the broad economics of it. I am quite sure the inquiry will, I think it will, reach the commonsense conclusion that those are matters for political judgement based on legal advice if there's a political will at the time at some moment in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister don't you need a more holistic approach and look at all possible energy sources in Australia rather than just at nuclear?
PRIME MINISTER:
This is an examination in relation to nuclear and uranium and processing and so forth. The point you make is a good one and there is merit and I could well have something to say further about this in the not to distant future. There is merit, in light of what is happening concerning energy, there could be merit in looking at other aspects of the whole energy scene, but I think nuclear warrants a separate examination for a number of reasons. It does have characteristics that other sectors of the energy sector don't have. We have recently had an energy White Paper, although some of the basis on which that paper was drawn up, namely the price of crude oil, has shifted and I don't shut out the possibility of other examinations in relation to energy because energy is plainly one of the big challenges this country has. I want to get this inquiry up and running and underway. If you hold everything back and try and do it all together you sometimes lose opportunity and create a situation where an examination becomes a survey of everything under the sun and that often doesn't produce very good results.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you taken note at all, or had a chance to take note of the two Budgets?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg you pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister have you taken note at all, or had a chance to take note of the two Budgets?
PRIME MINISTER:
No I have been tied up, I have had my nose to the grindstone and what is in them?
JOURNALIST:
Well New South Wales got a deficit and that struggling state of Queensland's got a $3 billion surplus.
PRIME MINISTER:
A $3 billion surplus?
JOURNALIST:
Close to. 2.29.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there, that is GST
JOURNALIST:
That's what sorry?
PRIME MINISTER:
GST. The surplus in Queensland, the most GST-endowed state in Australia.
JOURNALIST:
A lot of New South Wales money helping create that surplus.
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think in state terms, not even at the State of Origin, you know that, Mr Farr.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister did Cabinet consider the ACT's amended civil union legislation today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes we did and Mr Ruddock will be indicating the Commonwealth's position to take action to disallow it.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, what aspect of mining will the Inquiry look at?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that will be a matter for it. If you look at the terms of reference...
JOURNALIST:
We don't have them.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well no, I realise that I am going to distribute them as is my habit after the conference is concluded and as soon as the conference is concluded you will be able to have a look; the capacity for Australia to increase uranium mining and exports in response to growing global demand, so it is quite general.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, can we just return to the ACT's Civil Unions Legislation.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST:
Obviously Mr Ruddock will outline the reasons in detail.
PRIME MINISTER:
He will and I don't want to pre-empt anything he says.
JOURNALIST:
You can't tell us what your concerns are about this legislation? Why you've taken these steps?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I can indicate that the legislation by its own admission is an attempt to equate civil unions with marriage and we don't find that acceptable. Our view is very simple and that is that the founding fathers in their wisdom gave constitutional authority in relation to these matters to the Commonwealth. We legislated in a bipartisan fashion to define marriage and we are not prepared to accept something which is a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage and we don't agree with that, but Mr Ruddock will be saying further things about it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister didn't the ACT's amendments though distinctly separate marriage?
PRIME MINISTER:
No they don't, have a look at clause 5-2, it says although a civil union is not a marriage in all respects it will be treated the same as.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard have any regional countries...
PRIME MINISTER:
...I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Have any regional countries responded to our request, any further countries, to send police to East Timor?
PRIME MINISTER:
To date, no.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, the terms of reference, do they go in any way to the question of public opinion in relation to nuclear energy or will the taskforce for this purpose be relying on the feeling in your bones?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't even think they will be doing that. I think the taskforce will be reacting with their expertise and commonsense to the terms of reference. The terms of reference do not invite them to become a John Stirton or a Sol Lebovic.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on that issue, how concerned are you of a public backlash on this particular issue? Labor's already starting to roll out its material, particularly in marginal seats.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, of course, of course. I expect that, I expect all of that. I mean that is to be expected of a negative backward looking old-fashioned, bankrupt-of-ideas opposition.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you've said pretty clearly that the Government won't be involved in building any nuclear power stations, that it will be completely private sector activity. On your travels, I'd imagine, specifically in Washington, have you picked up any indication from the private sector on any level that they're interested in this?
PRIME MINISTER:
I didn't have any private sector proposals while I was in Washington or Canada, no.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you said that just being a supplier of uranium was foolish and you said later that...
PRIME MINISTER:
No it is not a bad thing in itself, but a lot of Australians...
JOURNALIST:
...but you miss out on value adding...
PRIME MINISTER:
...would always like the idea of value adding and I use the old, the age-old example in Australia of wool processing. People have felt for generations that it was a great pity that we had to send our wool to other parts of the world and then buy back the cloth. Why couldn't we process it in this country?
JOURNALIST:
Isn't it also a problem that by simply selling the ore we don't get a seat at the 'nuclear table' as it were? We have no influence.
PRIME MINISTER:
That is an issue, yes, it is an issue. It is not a dominant issue, but it is a consequence, yes. If we are not a nuclear fuel supplier then that shuts us out of certain gatherings.
JOURNALIST:
And Mr Howard what about the discussions that you'd flagged in relation to India? Has there been any more analysis of that issue in relation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the group that I sent to India then went onto Washington and it's reported back. I don't predict any immediate change in our policy, our current policy is only to sell to countries that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
JOURNALIST:
Will this Inquiry examine regulatory independence to the developing of nuclear power?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh it could well, yes it would be within its terms of reference to do so.
JOURNALIST:
So isn't the major regulatory impediment at the moment the legislative bans that exist?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, I think that is understood, but obviously if it is sometime in the future and there were a desire to change, then that might be changed, but you have to remember, Katherine isn't it, that we are dealing with the medium to longer term. I know there's a frantic, professionally delivered desire to anticipate and sketch out the next hurdle ahead of anybody else. I understand all of that, but what we have embarked upon is the first stage of a very significant journey and that is a journey of trying to understand whether the economic and other dynamics of this industry have so changed against the background of environmental attitudes, energy pressures, as to mean that we should and could and might afford and might sensibly embrace enrichment, perhaps a nuclear industry at some time in the future. As to when and where they are all matters that represent putting the cart before the horse.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think nuclear power would increase our vulnerability to terrorism in this post September 11 world?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think that if you look around the world, our vulnerability to terrorism is, it seems to me, to be no less or no more than other countries. There are plenty of nuclear countries that have got a terrorist problem, there are non-nuclear countries that have got a terrorist problem. We have seen ample examples of that, so I think it is neutral on that issue.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister as part of this process, would you be willing, would your Government be willing to consider the application of a carbon tax in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it is not a term of reference in this inquiry so I don't know that I would feel under any special additional pressure to look at that.
JOURNALIST:
Are you satisfied Prime Minister this will lead to the full-blooded debate you wanted?
PRIME MINISTER:
Seems to me it is.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister was Telstra discussed at today's Cabinet meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Was Telstra?
JOURNALIST:
The full sale of Telstra?
PRIME MINISTER:
Discussed when?
JOURNALIST:
At today's Cabinet meeting?
PRIME MINISTER:
Sorry, no, no, no that is an issue that is well and truly been decided. I mean we have passed the legislation authorising it, as to the timing of the sale well that is a matter of judgement at some point but we didn't discuss it today. If you think that we are looking at it in the context of an announcement I made last Friday morning, no, no, no.
JOURNALIST:
Are we more likely to see the sale of Telstra though Prime Minister? I mean there seems to be a raft of regulatory issues that have yet to be overcome? Telstra remains, Telstra is doing its level best to pick fights with the Government?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have always said, Steve, that we would not be a distressed seller, we would sell at a time when the price was good and right and that will continue to be our position. That hasn't changed as a result of any recent decisions taken by the Government. Thank you.
[ends]