Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources began in March 2005, some time ago. You can see by the size of the report that the information gathering took some time. Bringing such an amount of factual information and detail together was time-consuming. It is a very good report, which deals with many of the issues—and I commend the report to members of the chamber and the wider community.

The committee was tasked to inquire into and report on the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia, with particular regard to the global demand for Australia’s uranium resources and the supply issues. It was also tasked to inquire into the whole issue of uranium mining and the implications of global greenhouse gas emission reductions from the development and export of Australian uranium resources. When we first commenced the inquiry, there was little mention in Australia of uranium mining and even less of nuclear power’s much predicted global expansion. During the period of the inquiry, however, the committee noted a shift in the debate in relation to nuclear energy which seemed to be driven by community concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

There is a growing recognition that nuclear power could make a significant contribution to the mitigation of greenhouse gases. This realisation has led to some interesting debates, particularly as the green movement has been for many years diametrically opposed to any form of uranium mining and are still opposing it despite the fact that the whole industry has changed in all sorts of ways, including the treatment of waste—plus the fact that there is much less waste through new generation generators and the new technologies which are starting to emerge.

The main civil use of uranium is for the generation of power, and the demand for mining of uranium needs to be assessed in the context of the world electricity consumption trends and nuclear power’s share of electricity production. As we have been told by many of the submissions, global primary energy demand is forecast by the International Energy Agency to expand by more than one half between 2003 and 2030—reaching 16 billion tonnes of oil equivalent by 2030. Demand is projected to grow at a rate of 1.6 per cent per year over that period.

As China and India are now currently industrialising and there are other nations that are now experiencing power shortages for a number of reasons, they may also be looking at alternative energy sources. It is worth noting that the fuels used for the generation of electricity around the world can be broken down, and I think it lets people see exactly where energy is developed throughout the world. The majority of this demand by a long way is coal. Forty per cent of the world’s energy comes from coal; 19.2 per cent from natural gas; 6.9 per cent from oil; 16.3 per cent from hydro—all energy in Tasmania basically comes from hydro, except we now have a gas turbine in the north to give us some extra strength as well; 1.2 per cent from combustible renewables such as biomass; and 0.7 per cent from geothermal, solar and wind combined. I think it is worth saying that again: 0.7 per cent from geothermal, solar and wind combined.

I support renewable energy. We should encourage it and we should do research into it, but it has a long way to go before it is going to be the answer to bulk-load power. Nuclear was the fourth largest fuel source at 15.7 per cent. Therefore, it has been on the agenda for some time and the demand for uranium for peaceful means is very strong. With the industrialisation of China and India, that demand for uranium is increasing greatly as both countries need to extend their energy needs enormously.

The big issue of waste came up in a number of submissions. The report deals with that really well, in an open and constructive way. The evidence came through that the levels of waste in the future could be much lower because of new technologies such as pebble based technology and also the burning of more and more of the fuel as it goes into a reactor, with less waste left over to be dealt with.

Of course, the states have day-to-day regulation control of uranium mining, along with health and safety, but the Australian government at a federal level is involved in environment regulation, particularly the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which comes into play for any new or expanding uranium mine. So there are good regulations in place for this industry.

Labor members had a number of concerns and they noted that, while there is conflicting evidence about the demand for new enrichment facilities, the lack of governance for enrichment facilities under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the IAEA safeguards regime should preclude the development of new enrichment facilities anywhere in the world. Under the current regime, there is nothing illegal about any country having enrichment technology, yet the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is one of the most technically difficult but important steps towards making a nuclear weapon. If a country with a full nuclear cycle decided to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon capacity could be within reach in a short time. This is the dilemma now confronted in Iran.

The nuclear proliferation treaty needs to be reviewed. The committee recommends that it is to be addressed in a question in chapter 7 of this report. We also noted that Australia lacks the skills base necessary to support a domestic enrichment industry, and therefore we opposed that in Australia at the moment. There is considerable evidence that Australia’s geology is highly suitable for the disposition or disposal of nuclear waste and that theoretically Australia has the technology and skills capacity to develop a nuclear waste industry. The reality is that Australia has not yet been able to leverage its capacity to manage its own low and intermediate waste at any level. This is related to the history of dishonest political campaigns and a failure of national leadership on this issue. Therefore we need to develop and improve Australia’s capacity to manage domestic low and intermediate level waste, so it would be imprudent at any stage to consider any further developments of nuclear waste industry here.

We also considered that, while nuclear power is a useful and clean energy source, the development of nuclear power in the foreseeable future is not economic and does not stack up against the current power sources available. Australia has two current options for securing reliable and competitive base load power in the long term—clean coal and nuclear energy. Australia’s low electricity prices as a result of coal-fired power generation are a key source of competitive advantage for the nation’s industries, and Australia’s priority should therefore be to clean up coal-fired power generation, increase the uptake of gas and renewable technologies for peaking niche markets and support the research and development of new and renewable technologies for future base load.

At this stage on our side of the House, we therefore oppose the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia. This report has been very thorough, with enormous amounts of evidence and a hell of a lot of work. I thank the staff—Russell Chafer, Mr Jerome Brown, Ms Peggy Danaee and Penelope Humphries—for the task that they have done in putting together the work. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context