Talk:Howard's revival of nuclear debate "surprising": Political expert

This article is part of the Australian Federal politics project, a project of Wikinews Australia. Everyone is welcome to expand this article, however you are encouraged to use original sources where possible.

Original Reporting

This article was written from an e-mail interview with Dr John Cain, research into Australia's nuclear history and by maaking notes while recording and listening to ABC Radio Melbourne (not sure if it is legal to post the recording) at around 4PM on Monday - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Email Interview

Dear Nahtan
This is an old debate and most commentators would agree that it is surprising that Howard has revived it.  One of his motives might be to challenge the ALP over its three mine policy, but one could argue that the young people would not support his programme for the uranium mining companies to expand their mine numbers and production.  Howard might be left with the problem of how to meet the demands of the Chinese government which wants to actually own their own uranium mine in Aust.  The old argument still stands about Australia getting overseas firms to come and build nuclear generators in Aust.         It still remains uneconomic for Australia to commence generating electricity from nuclear plants.  Our coal supplies will last for another century and the natural gas deposits seem unlimited.  These gas supplies will probably displace coal generation and thereby reduce the greeen house gas problem.  On Howard's second point of his government admitting an overseas enrichment industry to establish its plant in Australia, the obvious question would be why would a French, Russian, US or Chinese company come to Australia to do what it has been doing quite well in its own country for decades.  There would be no fiancial advantage for them to do sao.  One can be sure that Howard is not proposing that his government intends to establish a government-owned enrichment plant.

It is obvious that Howard thinks that he is setting up a political debating point for the 2007 general elections which will obscure the more important domestic issues at the elections and have the ALP flumoxed.

Cheers
Dr Frank Cain  

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Carter [mailto:magnaboy@westnet.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 May 2006 1:14 PM
To: REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS
Subject: Media Inquiry: Australian nuclear debate

Dear Sir,
My name is Nathan Carter and I am an independent writer who publishes his work on Wikinews. At present we are taking a strong interest in the government's stance on nuclear energy as seen at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Australia/Australian_nuclear_debate

Comments made today by Peter Garrett that the government is only pursuing a debate on nuclear energy to side step the problem of climate change are particularily interesting. From a political expert's point of view what is your take on this?

What political consequences do you believe could come out of this issue?
Do you believe that Australia enriching Uranium is any different to Iran's plans?
Regards,
Nathan Carter 

If there are issues in posting this E-Mail please contact me for it's removal - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive Interview

Dr Cain is interviewed exclusively for Wikinews - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

His, hers, its

Don't forget! "it's" = "it is". Karen 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You need a big long stick to keep poking me when I get it wrong. For some reason I think that the ' denotes ownership much like when you say the car is Karen's - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
wholy => wholly Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)