Over at Polemica, Guy has some interesting thoughts on Beazley’s pro uranium mining declaration. The political strategy is pretty transparent – pick a fight with the left of your own party (having stitched up the numbers first), declare that you’re acting in the national interest, and be rewarded with tags such as “a bold move” by papers like The Fin. If you couldn’t work out what the Beazer was up to, the reference early in the speech to “my friend Tony Blair” should be a giveaway.
I wonder, though, if there’s any significance to the fact that his speech was made at the Sydney Institute.
I don’t have much of an opinion either way on the substantive policy issue, because I haven’t given it much thought, so I’ll refrain from commenting on that. But I’d be interested to hear people’s takes both on the politics and the substance.
I’d also be interested in any speculation as to why the Beazer always makes his “big picture” policy announcements precisely when world events relegate them to second fiddle status in the media. Are his spinmeisters pursuing a secret and highly cunning communications strategy? Or?
Sorry if this is a dupe….
Policy wise, it’s a no brainer. If you want uranium for a bomb (and you’re a nation state) it’s easy to obtain from domestic resources, as long as you’re prepared to pay over the going rate, so the proliferation concerns are essentially bogus in my view. The world wants to buy our uranium. It’s going for a premium price. The enviornmental damage of mining it is trifling compared to the equivalent amount of coal. The alternative would involve the Canadians and various other people happily selling the uranium we won’t. Why would we not?
Politics-wise, I don’t think there’s terribly much in it. If a few primary votes get switched from Labor to the Greens on the issue it’s hardly the world’s greatest disaster. But I suspect it’s actually an issue on which much of the public actually agrees with the left of the party, so it’s a strange one to pick a fight with the left on to demonstrate strength if that was the goal.
Elizabeth Knight has an interesting take on the issue in today’s SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/investors-should-heed-output-data-not-beazley/2006/07/25/1153816185520.html
I’ve posted previously on this here http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/04/07/the-electoral-politics-of-labors-uranium-policy/. I think the direct effect of a policy change on shifting the 2PP vote will be marginal, especially if the eventual policy change involves strong-sounding statements regarding the approvals process for new mines, and if (as is likely) Labor throws the peak environmental groups some generous bones on other issues. However, the anti-nuclear majority amongst Labor’s membership won’t be happy, and such a policy change will provide ammunition for (a) critics of the lack of internal democracy in the ALP and (b) political forces on the centre-left and far left who will point to such a policy change – occurring after Peter Garrett’s recruitment to the ALP – as evidence that advocates of sound environmental policy and progressive politics generally are wasting their time in the ALP.
Further to the point on bone-throwing, expect some serious talking under the table over the coming year or so between Labor figures and key figures in the peak conservation groups, with Labor’s pitch being “Please, stop clipping our ears over uranium mining, we can’t reverse that policy now, just make some other demands we can meet without losing face – they can be as big as you want – and we’ll give them to you.”
The old policy was silly. Either you think uranium shouldn’t be mined in which case we shouldn’t export it. Or you think its ok and then we shouldn’t restrict it on an arbitrary basis.
I mean it wasn’t even a volume limit it was a number of mines limit, regardless of size. Of course it turns out we have the largest mine in the world.
I pretty much agree with Paul about the electoral politics. There’s a good reason given his own seat’s position though for Albanese to speak out on this one, of course.
I wonder what Lindsay Tanner and Tanya Plibersek think.
Though I still don’t think the Greens are going to win those lower house seats.
It’s also worth remembering that in the 1983 Federal election (in between the two most acrimonous National Conference debates in Labor’s history on the uranium policy) the uranium issue didn’t really figure. It was overwhelmed as an environmental issue by the Franklin Dam, whilst the Fraser government’s incumbency during a macroeconomic recession, and Hawke’s hawking of the Accord under the theme of “Bringing Australia Together” eclipsed any impact it might have had on voters’ perceptions of the parties’ economic competence.
Like Mark, I am not really committed either way, although I think it is very important that appropriate controls over uranium mining and exporting are in place.
Also have to agree with Steve’s comment. Labor’s options are either to stop uranium mining altogether (somewhat impractical) or adopt a more nuanced stance towards potentially allowing further mining. The existing policy is a mishmash that tries to please everyone, fails, and doesn’t really make sense.
Mark, Tanya Plibersek is on record as agreeing with Albo. On past form I’d expect Lindsay Tanner to take a similar position.
The other nuance to keep in mind is that Labor could amend its policy to allow for new uranium mines, yet never (in government) allow a single new mine to be established, if it deems that the mine doesn’t satisfy the approvals conditions of the policy, or if it deems that the politics of the issue weigh against the mine.
Beazley is reported as proposing that Cabinet, rather than the Foreign Investment Review Board, should be the final arbiter over whether any proposed new mine should proceed. I’m not entirely happy about this as I have a long-standing preference for environmentally significant approvals and assessments being conducted at one remove from executive government by a statutory body with the expertise, mandate and independence to make such decisions on the basis of rationally integrated ecological, social, economic and indigenous heritage criteria. The limitations of having these decisions made politically should have been plain for all to see with the wild fluctuations of Federal Labor policy in the 80s and 90s, from strongly pro-environment positions with Hawke and PM and Richardson as Environment Minister to a pointyhead backlash with Keating as PM and a series of weaker Environment Ministers.
Regarding your last point Mark, you may be right.
Certainly Labor has flown under the radar on Lebanon. Beazley is pro Israel and has murmured as much, Rudd has put more of a bet each way, but they are obviously terrified of being caught between the jewish lobby and the left if they take a more pronounced step.
They are really, in terms of substantial differentiation from the Libs, only a 1 issue party at present.
It seems fairly sensible. He should drop the “my friend Tony Blair” line… It makes me worry…
I interpreted it as clearing the decks in preparation for the next election. That is, Beazley has decided he needs to be free to manouver, and not be shackled by ideological deadweight from the 80s. So he intends to have the stoush now.
Good move.
As to uranium, it needs to be evaluated like any other economic and environmental decision.
In some ways it makes Perfect sense for Beazely to slide under the radar while slowly accumulating a substantive policy armory.
I mean, interest rates up, petrol prices up, the chance of an economic downturn, however slight, the polls trending ever so slightly up for Labor… Beazely can comfortably bide his time and wait for the right moment to unleash his vision. Ok, Ok, Clearly I am getting carried away now – built up a head of steam there, but, you know what I mean. I hope.
The problem with the current Labor Uranium policy is you can’t be half pregnant – either it is okay or it is not (as mentioned by Steve Edney above). And the issue of nucelar weapons proliferation is a red-herring: frankly there are enough scary weapons kicking around unguarded in the former USSR that anyone that was halfway committed and had the money could get their hands on them, regardless of current Uranium mining availability throughout the world.
Where Big Kim is not being completely logical is the “it’s okay to sell it, we don’t want people to misuse the stuff, but we are not going to have anything to do with it once we ship it off-shore” approach. By committing to being involved throughout the whole product lifestyle he would probably retain a lot more support (and integrity).
And Paul Norton is right – the way things are being worded, Labor doesn’t HAVE to approve new mines, it allows for it. Subtle, but important.
Two things about this annoyed me.
Firstly, it feels very much like Beazley is trying to make this about his leadership. He knows that the conference will be in April – only about six months before the election. So at that point, the party has only two options: roll the leader, after he’s come out publicly in support of a position, or roll over and do as he says to avoid him looking even more piss-weak than he usually does.
Secondly (see point one), THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN ONLY SIX MONTHS OUT FROM THE ELECTION. The last thing we need at that point is a controversial change to our uranium mining policy. We already have a “clear point of difference� – the Libs supported WorkChoices, and we didn’t. God forbid we could go to the election with a popular, clear and simple message.
I dont exactly agree with Megami and Steve E’s logic.
It’s not about simply one or the other. But as Steve says, it’s also not about a relatively arbitrary number of mines set in stone for all time. Guy’s on the right track – the needs and dangers of uranium mining and exporting should be constantly monitored and controlled or allowed as conditions change, and subject to the decisiveness needed by companies engaged in mining operations.
And so I reckon Beazely’s position is just right. Wow, i cannot believe I said that.
Anna Winter – I totally agree with your assessment about the timing – this is about leadership strategy not belief. And yes, if Big Kim was going to choose something to try and secure his position (in the way you described very well) could have been something a bit less devisive and contreversial??
Agree with Steve Edney – if it shouldn’t be mined, then it should be completely stopped as soon as possible. If it’s ok to mine, then restricting it to “three” mines is absurd. (Peter Walsh wrote that the “three mines” very quickly turned into two actual mines.)
The debate seems to be a proxy for whether people are in favour of using uranium or against it…
Its true the 3 mines policy is just silly, but the new policy has its own absurdities. You can’t credibly oppose nuclear power as dangerous and immoral here and happily facilitate it elsewhere (unless you get into subtle and electorally unsaleable arguments about risk/reward of various options and how these vary country by country).
That may not worry the Bomber – he probably likes the idea of Australian nuclear power – but it oughtta worry others in the ALP.
The nuclear weapons proliferation argument was always a complete red herring – for about five times the current yellowcake price you can extract uranium from seawater.
DD, what you say makes sense.
The scary weapons kicking around the former USSR megami refers to are being gradually mixed with ordinary uranium and burnt up in reactors. The rate at which this is done is dependent in part on the amount of natural uranium on the market – the more natural uranium, the slower the weapons are put out of harms way.
Consequently, limiting the amount of uranium exported does make a contribution to stop weapons getting into the wrong hands, although it is certainly debatable how large the contribution is. But it is true it would make more sense to cap the quantity of uranium exports than the number of mines.
Thanks StephenL, that is a development I didn’t know about. However, there is concern about the number of weapons that are currently unaccounted for, or being kept in non-secure locations. But that is another topic, heh?
A preference, Paul, whose desirability is currently being demonstrated with reference to Ian Campbell and orange bellied parrots.
I understood that the anti-uranium mining states seem to think that under Beazley’s plan, they would be able to veto new mines.
Anna, I share your concern. I think the other things operating are – Beazley wanting to make himself look “strong” while the Libs have leadership ructions, and the famous “economic credibility” thing – this may be just as much if not more about attracting business support and donations after the AWA move than votes.
I have no doubt that it’s partly due to Beazley wanting to look “strong” – it’s an easy party policy for him to do this with given it’s silliness.
I was under the impression that the states have the ultimately say over Uranium mines (NTY excluded, perhaps). It would be imprudent of Beazley to change his policy on mines without prior consultation of the State Governments.
Apart from that… I think their policy (new mines but no enrichment) smells a bit arbitrary and might perhaps only be a way of differentiating themselves from the Coalition (notice how Howard’s call for a debate on plants has been downgraded to a debate on enrichment – Howard’s plan all along). Of course, we would be contradicting US policy by beginning enrichment, and would perhaps be seen as promoting a double standard vis a vis Iran and NK. But I think we should seriously consider it… it would stand to make us more revenue through value adding, and it would improve our scientific and technological expertise (as opposed to simply making our money by shipping dirt overseas). We should, of course, set an example by submitting our program entirely to IAEA inspections… and disavowing unambiguously the ambition to weaponization. This means full transparency, especially with our neighbours. And I think we can afford to contradict the US on this one… we’ve earnt enough credit with them to afford a little disobedience, I would think.
The NSW Premier’s relatively recent statement against uranium mining struck me as product differentiation. What did other people think about it?
On the state/federal thing, I think what Beazley is saying is that Cabinet will decide instead of the FIRB if a foreign company is involved (as would be likely) and the relevant State would need to approve as well – so two layers of scrutiny. Ties in with his “strict conditions” message.
Sacha, it wouldn’t surprise me if the NSW ALP weren’t also worried about the Green vote in Inner Sydney seats.
Mark, I’m sure that the Green vote is a concern for the ALP in inner-sydney, particularly in Balmain and Marrickville. It might be of less concern in Clover Moore’s seat but I think that everyone expects that Clover will run again.
How much uranium is in NSW?
Anna Winter:
As I’ve said elsewhere, Howard will target the bits of WorkChoices that focus groups really hate and cut the worst of them out, just like he did with the GST. This will leave Beazley then as now pretty much buggered, with all ammunition spent and nothing else to differentiate Labor from and above the Coalition. Beazley will pull off one of those great concession speeches and then, hopefully, get out of Federal Parliament altogether.
I doubt it, Andrew. That would be smart. But unless the polls really go south on him, IR is one area where John Howard is a conviction politician.
Howard has crossed the “Rubicon” with Workchoices and he won’t be going back. He has made his intentions clear on workplace reform and as Mark suggested it has been a life long crusade for Howard. It would be politically hard for him to go back on.
The GST was trumped as an issue by firstly Tampa and secondly September 11th.As far as I know there was still a strong swing against the GST but an even stronger one away from Labor on the “boat people” issue. I would argue that nothing Howard did dampened the GST as an issue but he certainly found other issues that more than offset it.
With the changes to the GST after its introduction, it was really just fiddling with and simplifying the administration of it. The original compromise to get it through with the Democrats was necessary as Harradine wasn’t going to support it. By contrast, WorkChoices is the fruit of Senate control.