Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I was pleased to have the opportunity to hear the member for Moore complete his remarks. I wish to speak to theAustralian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 and, in particular, to the clause of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga that proposes that the government be condemned for:

... establishing a hand-picked committee of inquiry into the economics of nuclear power in Australia, while disregarding the economic case for all alternative sources of energy.

I am very pleased to support that amendment and speak in favour of it. I think that it is astonishing that the Prime Minister, having turned his face against the issues of global warming and climate change for many years, could remarkably decide, ‘Yes, there is a problem and we need to do something; the something we need to do is nuclear power,’ and institute a committee of inquiry to investigate nuclear power and nuclear energy. If the Prime Minister was serious about this matter he would have had an inquiry into the real problem, which is global warming and climate change. The real problem is how we get on a sustainable energy path for the future.

I had the good fortune last Monday night to be one of quite a number of MPs who saw a screening of the film An Inconvenient Truth, which talks about Al Gore’s post-2000 journey around America and beyond talking about the issue of climate change. It is a remarkable film, and I urge everyone who can to have a look at it. Some scientific pieces of data concerning global warming emerge from the film. Recent data from Antarctic ice cores indicate that carbon dioxide concentrations are now higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years, which is as far back as measurements can reach. 2005 was the warmest year on record since atmospheric temperatures have been measured, and the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. In the summer of 2005 heat records were broken in hundreds of United States cities. Over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. In 2003 heatwaves caused over 30,000 deaths in Europe and 1,500 deaths in India. Since 1978, arctic sea ice has been shrinking by about nine per cent per decade, and the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, at their current rate of melting, may be gone by 2020.

Some of the predicted effects as global warming gathers momentum are that we will have an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Hurricanes are a function of the temperature of water; as the temperature of water increases both the severity and the frequency of hurricanes are apt to increase. Over the past several decades the number of category 4 and category 5 hurricanes globally has almost doubled. Because the ocean is getting warmer, tropical storms can pick up more energy and become more powerful. It is just over a year since Hurricane Katrina, which was truly shocking both in what occurred and in the inadequate response to it, but that is the kind of thing which is predicted to happen in future. Indeed, in Australia we had Cyclone Larry just earlier this year. On the one hand we will get severe storms, but we will also get other severe and extreme weather events; things like droughts, bushfires and the like. We in Australia, and particularly those of us who live in southern Australia, have been experiencing drought after drought and declining water availability. The statistics show that Perth has had a dramatic fall in water availability over something like 20 years. My own city of Melbourne is experiencing it and many other cities and towns in the southern part of the continent are experiencing water crises as well.

In other parts of the world, due to rising sea level, low-lying islands will no longer be habitable. Al Gore’s film talks a lot about the impact on the Arctic and the Antarctic. That is for two reasons; one is that it is very easy to measure what has been going on with temperatures and the like in the Arctic and the Antarctic because they are in such pristine condition. They have not had the influence of human habitation, so they are great places to measure things. The second is that global warming and climate change are most dramatic at the polar caps. The effects are being magnified in those areas. The prospect of the arctic shelf disappearing altogether is one which the film and indeed many other scientists have canvassed. Al Gore talks about polar bears, for the first time on record, drowning because they are simply unable to find ice on which to shelter.

Forests, farms and cities will face troublesome new pests and more mosquito borne diseases, and the destruction of habitats such as coral reefs and alpine meadows could drive many plant and animal species to extinction. In Australia, areas like the Great Barrier Reef stand to be greatly affected by things like coral bleaching, for example. It is said that the low-lying islands of the Pacific or low-lying places like Bangladesh will experience the most extreme impacts of global warming and climate change, but Australia will just about come next in terms of the impact of drought and bushfires and things like the adverse impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

A whole series of things are being brought to our attention that are incontrovertible evidence of global warming: the 10 hottest years on record having occurred in the last 14 years, the rapidly-rising incidence of severe tropical storms and hurricanes, changing rainfall patterns and temperature related habitat loss leading to the extinction of some of the world’s wild creatures.

On the other hand, we have indications that many people simply are not getting the message. One of Al Gore’s observations is that a study of all peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change found that of some 928 papers—and this is fascinating—the number which supported global warming was 928 and the number which denied it was zero. So in terms of scientific consensus it is absolutely clear. But, in a sampling of stories from the United States mass media, some 53 per cent suggest that global warming is unproven. The message that people are getting is absolutely different from the scientific consensus and the actual evidence before us. Indeed, climate change events are kicking in in ways which are more severe and more spectacular than scientists were predicting some 20 years ago, when these sorts of issues were first raised. The problem appears to be more serious than previous predictions would have suggested.

In response to this the government has embarked on an inquiry into nuclear energy. I believe that that is a missed opportunity and it will delay the deployment of low- and zero-emission electricity generation. It is regrettable that throughout its time in government this government has done nothing to promote the renewable energy industry. The mandatory renewable energy target is simply too low to genuinely promote renewable energy, and the government has set its face against any actions which might have spurred us on in the renewable energy direction. Internationally, it has been completely irresponsible in its response to the Kyoto protocol. To our embarrassment, the film has Al Gore talking about the United States’ position on Kyoto, saying, ‘And there is one other developed country in the world which has not ratified the Kyoto protocol,’ and of course going on to mention Australia.

Here in Australia the government has not been willing to take action on emissions trading, to take action to lift the renewable energy target or to include greenhouse gases as a potential trigger in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It has cut funding in various renewable energy projects. As a result, Australia, which was something of a world leader in solar technologies in the order of 20 years ago, has essentially been running on the spot or even going backwards. The challenge for the government is to identify and develop appropriate market based technologies and incentives that will enable all the low- and zero-emission technologies to compete on a level playing field.

When you consider these matters it seems that the role of nuclear energy is not likely to be growing and that other energy technologies will prove to be more important. Over the past 50 years nuclear power has received pretty generous subsidies. For example, in the United States it has received $US115 billion in direct subsidies compared to less than $US10 billion for wind and solar combined. That pattern is repeated in Europe. According to the Economist, more than half of the subsidies in real terms ever lavished on energy by OECD governments have gone to the nuclear industry. Despite that intensive taxpayer funded development, there is not a single nuclear reactor built without government covering the risks. Often when people raise issues of renewable energy and alternative energy technologies you have people screaming ‘subsidy’ and saying that they oppose this, but it is quite clear that nuclear power cannot exist without significant state subsidies.

A report was put out by ANSTO suggesting that nuclear power was price competitive with coal generated electricity, but that report shows that, unless the government was prepared to take on more than half the financial risk of building a first-of-a-kind reactor, nuclear energy would not be viable. It says the nuclear power generated would cost twice as much as coal fired power and any private operator that took on the costs and risks would quickly go into liquidation. That contradicts the claims that nuclear power is cheap or cost effective and viable. It does show that very large subsidies would be necessary, would be required, if it were to be introduced in Australia.

I think that the prospect of having nuclear energy in this country any time soon is pie in the sky and that debate and discussion about it is largely a distraction from the real urgency of the need for action concerning global warming and climate change. It is yet another example of this government postponing action when action is needed.

It has also been pointed out that you cannot have nuclear power without nuclear waste. Every state and territory in Australia opposes the transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste. There is no safe, long-term disposal or storage in sight anywhere around the world. The other significant point in relation to nuclear power is that we live in the modern age of terrorism, and we are better served in this age by decentralising our energy production. More nuclear reactors mean more nuclear materials and more chance of nuclear weapons proliferation. Mohamed ElBaradei highlighted a number of risks of this kind last year when he said:

In five years, the world has changed. Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation—whatever the cause—have been reawakened.

In part, these fears are driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism. The discovery of clandestine nuclear programmes. The emergence of a nuclear black market.

At the present time, the international community is displaying great concern because Iran is seeking to produce nuclear energy. That concern is based around the idea that there is a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, and so in the modern age it seems to me that nuclear energy is not the safe path to be proceeding down.

In this context I also note that there was a Gary Morgan poll recently with the heading ‘More Australians approve than disapprove of nuclear power plants’. As an example of push polling, it is pretty hard to go past this one. The actual question people were asked was:

Following much debate on the Australian uranium industry, more Australians (49%) approve than disapprove (37%) the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil, and gas plants to replace greenhouse gas emissions.

…            …            …

Do you approve or disapprove of nuclear power plants replacing coal, oil, and gas power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The question came after an affirmative, did not ask about Australia and was predicated on the idea that nuclear power was the only way in which we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I do not think polling of that kind ought to be taken too seriously.

In closing, I note that the legislation’s intention is to extend the power of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a wider range of sources and circumstances than it is able to do at present. Currently, ANSTO is limited by legislation to dealing with its own radioactive materials, including waste, and in a number of ways it is argued—and I agree that this is right—that it would be sensible and practical for ANSTO to be able to handle, manage or store a wider range of materials. For this reason, the opposition supports the bill. The bill allows ANSTO to have a direct role in managing radioactive material involved in terrorist or criminal incidents, and at the moment the act limits the assistance that ANSTO can provide in an emergency to only providing advice to Commonwealth, state and territory agencies. This would mean that, in the circumstances of a terrorist group gathering material for and assembling the components of a radioactive dirty bomb, ANSTO personnel could advise other Commonwealth officers about handling the radioactive material but they would be restrained by law from handling the material themselves, from making that material safe, from transporting that material in safe containers or from safely storing that material at an ANSTO facility. It seems reasonable that these additional powers should be made available to it.

The other aspect of the opposition amendment, which I will briefly refer to, is that we have said that the government ought to be condemned for its arrogant imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory. This breaks a specific promise made before the last election to not locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory, and the member for Solomon was on record prior to that election saying:

There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory ... That was the commitment undertaken in the lead-up to the federal election and I haven’t heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election.

It is outrageous, though regrettably all too common, for this government to be saying one thing before the election and one thing after the election. The government stands condemned for breaking this promise and now saying, ‘We are going to impose the nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory,’ irrespective of their local views and concerns.

See this speech in context