| Sports |
Howard’s
nuke legacy
By Julie Macken
WHETHER Australian prime minister John Howard wins the next
federal election or not, there is little doubt he will leave the
political stage within the next two years. This raises the
question of his legacy.
How Howard will be remembered is a question that is being answered
– at least, in part – by a number of books now appearing on
bookshelves across Australia.
In April, Clive Hamilton launched his book Scorcher : The Dirty
Politics of Climate Change.
And over the next couple of weeks, two other books detailed
different aspects of what Howard will leave behind after over a
decade in power – National Insecurity: The Howard Government’s
Betrayal of Australia by Linda Weiss, John Mathews and Elizabeth
Thurbon, and Shakedown: Australia’s Grab for Timor Oil by Paul
Cleary.
But Howard’s legacy building is not over.
Over the next two months, he could instigate a series of actions
that would extend his influence through the next decade and
beyond, leaving a legacy that could have the added benefit – from
Howard’s point of view – of destroying the first term of an
in-coming Labor government.
In a speech and media release issued on April 28, Howard made his
intentions clear.
The media release entitled, “Uranium Mining and Nuclear Energy: A
Way Forward for Australia”, lays out his ambition for a nuclear
Australia.
In it, he announces ‘a new strategy for the future development of
uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia’.
Howard’s strategy includes: removing “unnecessary” constraints
impeding the expansion of uranium mining; making a firm commitment
to Australia’s participation in the Generation IV advanced nuclear
reactor research programme; creating a new nuclear energy
regulatory authority; more support for skills and technical
training; an enhanced research and development capability; and a
PR campaign to
support the nuclear industry.
However, it is his promise to “repeal Commonwealth legislation
prohibiting nuclear activities, including the relevant provisions
of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999”, that provides the greatest scope for legacy building.
Currently, the Act bans certain nuclear installations –
specifically, fuel fabrication plants, enrichment plants, nuclear
power plants, and reprocessing plants.
Once Howard repeals this legislation – and given his control of
the senate, there is little chance he can be prevented from doing
so – it will become legal to build fabrication, enrichment and
reprocessing plants in Australia.
It will also become legal to contract for the building of nuclear
reactors.
Of equal importance to the lifting of the prohibition against
nuclear facilities, is the way the Howard government may decide to
change the legislation.
For instance, if the government decided to replicate what it did
last December when the senate passed the Environment and Heritage
Legislation Amendment Bill – and in the process made it legal to
build a high-level nuclear waste dump – there would be nothing to
stop either the prime minister, the minister for resources or the
minister for the environment from signing binding contracts with
either Australian or multinational companies to build, say, 25
nuclear reactors over the next 10 years.
Price? According to the Switkowski Report, 25 reactors would cost
about A$75 billion.
This scenario raises two questions.
First, how realistic is it and what is the evidence to support it.
Second, what, if anything, can federal Labor do to avoid walking
into a A$75 billion compensation bill – assuming a Rudd government
would choose not to go ahead with the construction of any nuclear
reactors.
Making it legal to build nuclear reactors is one thing, getting
them built is another deal entirely.
For this, Howard would need individuals and companies with access
to a great deal of money who were willing to invest it in the
risky business of nuclear power generation.
How realistic is that?
On Feb 27, the Howard government was forced to reveal just how
realistic that proposition is – even before it has become legal to
do so.
That was the day the prime minister was asked to explain how it
was that three Australian businessmen – Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan
and Robert Champion de Crespigny – had confided in him about their
nuclear ambitions.
He told Parliament: “It was about the middle of last year. He (Ron
Walker) said that he, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny
had decided to register a company that could be interested in
nuclear power.
“I said, ‘That’s a great idea, Ron, because you know my view on
it’. I do not know what this is all about.
“My view and the view of the government about nuclear power being
an option is well known.
“Whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial
decision.
“I remind the leader of the Opposition that the laws of the
Commonwealth and the States as they now stand prohibit any nuclear
power generation in Australia.”
Indeed they do.
That question in February, ended when Rudd said: “Mr Speaker, I
seek leave to table the ASIC company extract on Australian Nuclear
Energy Ltd (the name of the Walker, Morgan, de Crespigny company),
registration date June 1, 2006, and the prime minister’s statement
of June 6, 2006, establishing the review of uranium mining
processing and nuclear energy in Australia.”
One source close to Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd said they had
already spoken to US company (and nuclear specialists) General
Electric (GE) about supplying a nuclear generating plant.
However, these three business men are not alone in their
ambitions.
Earlier this year, the World Bank
held a cocktail party in Washington DC, bringing together major
players from the world’s energy sector.
An Australian colleague was surprised to find himself chatting
with a very happy fellow from one of the world largest nuclear
power companies. It seems the man had just been paid US$4 million
for doing a pre-feasibility study for another Australian company.
The study was conducted to explore the possibility of building a
2GW nuclear power plant in either Port Augusta or Whyalla.
This area is also of interest to the Walker, Morgan and de
Crespigny consortium because there is capacity there to fuel a
large desalination plant for mining operations as well as
supplying power to local industry.
So, we have Howard committed to “removing unnecessary constraints”
on the nuclear power industry
in Australia, and willing to change Commonwealth legislation to
achieve this end.
We have at least two companies already running a ruler over the
country to see where to site nuclear reactors.
And we have Dr Switkowski advising the government that 25 nuclear
reactors could be built by 2050 and they would have a significant
impact on Australia’s carbon emissions.
The next federal election is due later this year. During that
time, it is possible the Howard government could change the
legislation and be in a position to sign contacts for the
construction of up to 25 nuclear reactors in Australia.
This would be entirely legal, if not entirely moral.
Should Labor win the next election, what options would they have?
According to Julian Burnside QC, that depends on what they do
between now and the election.
He believes they could be confronted with a large compensation
bill, assuming they cancelled the contracts. However, he added:
“If Labor spent their time making it clear that they would not
support nuclear power in Australia, they would put the companies
affected on notice.”
The added benefit of such a clear and uncompromising position from
Labor is that it would make it clear a vote for the coalition is a
vote for a nuclear future, while a vote for Labor is a vote for a
nuclear-free future. – newmatilda
Note: The writer is a
former journalist with the Australian Financial Review and former
consultant to Peter Garrett, shadow minister for climate change,
environment, heritage and the arts.
 
|
