Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to offer my contribution in the debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, which will allow the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, to condition, manage and store radioactive material and radioactive waste other than that which may arise directly from ANSTO’s own activities. For the member for Mallee, who just spoke: the reactor he was referring to is operational now. The OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is working; it is not just in the developmental stages.

This bill extends ANSTO’s powers to handle, manage and store radioactive materials from a broader range of sources and in a wider range of circumstances than it is currently allowed to do under the ANSTO Act 1987. ANSTO is perfectly placed to conduct this activity. In fact, ANSTO has been storing waste at its Lucas Heights facility for some 50 years.

I would like to draw the attention of members to Australia’s long involvement in nuclear science and technology despite the fact that we do not have a domestic nuclear power industry, and in fact would probably not need one given our vast reserves of natural gas—in your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase—coal and other reserves of fuel across the country.

Soon after the discovery of X-rays and radioactivity in 1895 and 1896 respectively, Australian universities started to use these technologies in research. Australian doctors also started to use X-rays for clinical purposes at around the same time. As usual with new technologies, Australians took up the opportunities offered by radioactivity and X-rays very quickly. Indeed, there is evidence that X-rays were being used in Albury and Wilcannia in New South Wales during 1896. Radioactivity was first used in Australia for clinical purposes to treat tumours, and in dermatology, in 1983. So we have a remarkably long history in applying nuclear technology to medical and scientific uses in this country. In 1929 the federal government set up the Commonwealth Radium Laboratory, which subsequently became the Commonwealth X-ray and Radium Laboratory, which was located at the University of Melbourne. The laboratory was established to safeguard radium purchased by the government and to distribute it to treatment centres in the capital cities. It eventually became the Australian Radiation Laboratory in 1973. The laboratory also collected radioactive waste, including X-ray tubes and other medical and scientific waste, from hospitals and scientific institutions.

In terms of investigating nuclear energy and power, the federal government enacted the Atomic Energy Act in 1946 to establish an Atomic Energy Advisory Committee to assist the government with nuclear issues. The act also asserted Commonwealth ownership and control of the minerals from which uranium, plutonium and thorium are derived. The successor to the advisory committee, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, was created in 1953 and was later replaced by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, in 1987.

As we know, during the 1950s the British government conducted nuclear weapons tests on the Montebello Islands off Western Australia and at Maralinga and Emu in South Australia. It is a matter of record that these tests caused significant radioactive contamination and these locations remain affected today.

In 1958, the high flux Australian reactor, HIFAR, was opened at Lucas Heights in Sydney’s south west and subsequently the AAEC’s small MOATA 250kw argonaut research reactor commenced operation in 1961. During the 1960s, the use of the HIFAR reactor to produce radioisotopes for use in nuclear medicine commenced.

Only a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending Lucas Heights facilities at ANSTO. I want to thank the staff for the innovative and informative tour of the facilities. It was absolutely fantastic. I was able to view the new OPAL reactor at the very point where they were inserting the rods into that reactor to bring it onstream. I understand that process is going very well. I also had the pleasure of looking at where they produce the radioisotopes for medicine, and was very impressed with the professionalism of the staff, the facilities, what they produce and the importance it has for medicine in this country.

I also looked at a fabulous product being developed at ANSTO called synroc, which uses rock type substances which you combine to put nuclear waste in, such as plutonium. Once it sets into a rock like substance it locks up the radioactivity for thousands of years. The main problem with synroc is that it is so effective in locking up waste that if you wanted to reprocess that waste you would not be able to because the technology would prevent that from happening. It would cost a fortune to achieve that. I was also very impressed with the new particle beam accelerator that is coming online next to the reactor. The possibilities are endless for the sorts of developmental programs we can run involving not just Australia but other countries around the world in looking at the various uses for that particular piece of equipment.

The next major milestone in Australia’s consideration and use of nuclear technology came in the early 1980s with Professor Ralph Slayter’s report on Australia’s role in the nuclear cycle. That report made a number of recommendations, including one which is most pertinent to the House’s consideration of this bill. The report called for the identification of sites suitable for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste and the development of facilities for interim storage and disposal of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. This recommendation was endorsed by the Commonwealth State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in 1985. Since then we have seen a plethora of committees examining appropriate and safe nuclear waste storage and handling. Many of these inquiries were held in the context of the need to rehabilitate the former nuclear test sites which were so badly contaminated by the British in the 1950s. Other inquiries were held to anticipate Australia’s needs for waste storage in the future.

But let us fast forward to the issues raised in this bill. These issues are undoubtedly difficult and challenging for all governments. Today we are still facing the serious issue of the storage and handling of nuclear waste. Given that Professor Slayter’s report recommending the identification of sites for the storage of low-level waste was released in 1984, it is a sad indictment that we have not made the progress which we should have done in dealing with this challenge.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the ANSTO Amendment Bill 2006 will extend the powers of ANSTO to handle, manage and store radioactive materials from a broad range of sources and circumstances. The opposition will support this legislation as it is essentially a sensible approach to Australia’s current needs in dealing with nuclear waste. But I firmly believe that Australia needs to debate the issues surrounding nuclear energy. In many countries around the world, nuclear power is being re-assessed, not just as a source of energy but as a source of power generation capable of meeting vast energy requirements in the future without producing vast quantities of greenhouse gases.

With increasing concern about climate change, nuclear power is being reassessed and, in many countries, it has become a viable option. As I said earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, I do not believe that Australia needs to go down that path for the very obvious reason that we have an abundance of natural gas and LPG in your electorate and in my state of Western Australia. We also have vast quantities of gas to our north and vast quantities of coal in Queensland and in other states. So the issue of nuclear power generation in Australia should not be a consideration. But, certainly, supporting other countries that want to go down the path of developing nuclear programs by selling them the means to achieve that energy is, I think, very important—particularly when you consider that, today, 31 countries operate 440 commercial nuclear power reactors and generate a total capacity of around 369 gigawatts of electricity.

While it is true that nuclear power is being reconsidered in some countries in Western Europe, it has experienced something of a renaissance in other regions of the world. According to the OECD in its publication Uranium 2005: resources, production and demand, nuclear power generation in East Asia is projected to increase by between 90 and 115 per cent by 2020. Overall, it can be reasonably expected that nuclear energy will play an important and significant role in meeting the world’s future energy needs.

Twenty-four new reactors are under construction and plans for a further 40 are in advanced stages. China alone plans to have 27 new reactors operational by 2020, while Japan is planning to increase its reliance on nuclear energy from 30 per cent to 41 per cent by 2014. When I was in Great Britain recently, I heard an announcement by Tony Blair that Great Britain intended to expand its nuclear power capacity and to upgrade its existing reactors.

The simple fact is that, in this era of high oil prices and with the continued strategic uncertainty looming over much of the world’s fossil fuel production, many companies are seeing nuclear energy as both economic and secure. The world’s significantly increased demand—perhaps it could be described as an almost insatiable demand—for nuclear energy will inevitably require a consideration of issues related to uranium mining.

In 2004, Australia produced almost 20 per cent of the world’s trade in uranium for fuel in nuclear power reactors. Considering that Australia is believed to possess 24 per cent of known uranium reserves and 40 per cent of reserves that can be mined at low cost, it is timely that we consider how Australia will deal with increased demand for its uranium. The market for uranium is changing significantly. Until recently, uranium was a buyer’s market. For the past 25 years, the uranium market has been oversupplied and nuclear power has been out of favour.

In addition, the existence of large stockpiles of secondary nuclear fuels—that is, those derived from decommissioned warheads, depleted uranium tails and reprocessed uranium—has dampened demand for newly mined uranium. Today, however, secondary supplies are dwindling and mining operations are struggling to meet the recent surge in demand, subsequently driving up the price of uranium. Since 2001, the spot price for uranium has increased nearly fivefold from around $US9 per pound to $US43 per pound as of June this year.

With demand to outstrip supply for the next 10 years at least, industry experts suggest that these historic prices are here to stay and may possibly rise significantly higher in the years ahead. These developments have transformed the dynamics of the Australian uranium industry, and they have changed the dynamics in which approval for new mining operations must be considered. Now more than ever Australia is in a unique position to reap the economic benefits of our current uranium capacity and to play a lead role in ensuring that uranium can be used only for peaceful purposes.

As a major seller of uranium in world markets, we must also accept responsibility for ensuring that uranium, wherever its source, is not diverted into the production of nuclear weapons or used for other military applications. This is a responsibility that Australia, as holder of the world’s largest reserves of uranium, must take a lead role in. For this reason, uranium is more than simply a commodity export; uranium policy is a fundamental aspect of foreign policy. As the member for Batman recently said in an excellent speech on the subject, Australia and the world cannot afford a ‘no holds barred’ approach to the sale of uranium. Our policy needs to balance all of the various economic, security and environmental concerns surrounding uranium exports. To get this balance wrong would be grossly damaging to Australia’s national interest and, indeed, to that of the world.

There are significant and substantial concerns about security and safety issues. As many members of the House would be aware, the global non-proliferation regime is in disarray. Much of this disarray stems from the failure of the world’s five recognised nuclear weapons countries to uphold their commitments under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty to disarm. As the years since the signing of the NPT—back in 1968—have demonstrated, whenever countries are in possession of nuclear weapons, other countries will also feel compelled to possess nuclear weapons. The equation is that simple.

If Australia is to be a reliable and, most importantly, a responsible supplier of uranium to the world, then clearly we will need to exercise leadership in getting the global non-proliferation regime back on track. Sadly, the Howard government has been sorely lacking in this regard. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a recent report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Australian uranium exports and security. In this report, ASPI examines in some detail the safety and security issues surrounding uranium exports. The report notes that Australia has for decades been a responsible exporter of uranium and a very strong advocate of international controls on nuclear technology and materials. The report also notes that any increased role in the nuclear industry will be via an approach that also emphasises security. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated:

Australia has no greater obligations and no greater international opportunities than those granted by a position as a nuclear supplier.

Australia must now work to ensure that it is well understood that our reliability as a supplier of uranium is contingent on all of our customers pulling their full weight in strengthening the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. As the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Batman have made clear, Labor’s uranium export policy will have three simple tests: first, potential buyers must accept the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; second, they must accept the world’s strongest safeguards and the peaceful use of uranium; and, third, Australia must lead a new diplomatic initiative against nuclear proliferation, which includes a review to strengthen the NPT.

Australia stands in unique circumstances to influence and enhance the effectiveness of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Australia should aim to do nothing less than apply the leverage over the global non-proliferation regime that our resources have afforded us. In this way, we can honour our obligations and advance our opportunities. The bill deserves support, but the issues canvassed in the bill are but the tip of the iceberg of the challenges faced by Australia in dealing with the issues of nuclear waste and our uranium exports. I know that in coming months there will be many opportunities for all members to participate in debates and discussions on these issues. As we all achieve a greater understanding of the topic, the interests of Australia can be advanced and protected.

See this speech in context