Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. As I was sitting in my office listening to some of the contributions made by the government members on this bill, my ears pricked up a little bit, because some of the contributions were extraordinary. The minister for energy has joined us in the chamber, and he does have a very difficult job placating some of the pretty extraordinary views in his backbench. We'll start with the member for Fairfax.

The member for Fairfax, who chaired the committee inquiry into nuclear energy, stood here and said that there haven't been any incidents at ANSTO in Lucas Heights, where the medical nuclear technology is manufactured. Of course, we know that last year there were a number of incidents where people were exposed to radioactive material. Thankfully those incidents didn't result in serious health concerns for people, but there were a number of very serious exposures. There was also a period of time where ANSTO had to cease production of medical nuclear technology until ARPANSA was satisfied with the safety practices. But that wasn't quite as extraordinary as the member for Grey, who in his contribution admitted he was going to offer his own property as a site for a nuclear waste deposit area—until he was advised he would be disqualified from sitting in the parliament if he were to do so. So he then quite wisely decided to withdraw the offer of opening up his backyard as a nuclear waste site.

But that was almost beaten by the member for Lyne, who pronounced that he had given intermediate waste a hug at Lucas Heights. At Lucas Heights there is a massive structure that looks like a big can of Coke; it is 11 feet high or maybe taller. Of all the things I thought about when I walked up to that big structure containing intermediate-level nuclear waste, giving it a hug wasn't in my top 10. Nonetheless, the member for Lyne decided he was going to give it a hug, and we continued on with our tour. On that note, I recognise that ANSTO has some very capable scientists and people working there who do fantastic work. They produce nuclear medical technology that is absolutely necessary. Like many people in this House, I can say that members of my family have benefited from having tests and other treatments that use nuclear technology and require the material that is created at the Lucas Heights facility. Ultimately, that is something we don't have a choice on. We need to continue to produce this material and we need to continue the activities at Lucas Heights.

While there are no other options for medicine, there absolutely are other options for other sorts of nuclear technology and energy. We do not need nuclear technology for energy. The OPAL reactor at Lucas heights is a fascinating piece of equipment. It is an open-water reactor. You can literally peer over the top and see the reactor underneath you. It is quite extraordinary. I was very privileged to go and have a look at it. Obviously, if we were talking about scaling up the activity in order to be able to produce nuclear energy, we wouldn't be having an open-water reactor; we would be having either a large-scale nuclear reactor or, if you listen to members from the government, small modular reactors—even though they don't exist. But, in the future, you would need to have a different form of reactor, a large-scale reactor, which would not be an open-water reactor; it would be closed off and you wouldn't be able to see it because of the much higher level and volume of uranium required in order to create enough heat to produce energy.

The reactor is very much scaled-down, but if we were to go down the road of nuclear energy, we would be required to use a very different piece of technology that would be producing a far greater quantity of waste. As the member for Fremantle rightly pointed out in his contribution, we have been in this process for decades, and it has cost us tens of millions of dollars, yet we still don't have a site because it is a very difficult task to place materials that will have to be left alone for literally thousands of years. While we do have a number of sites across the country where low-level waste is stored, intermediate-level waste is currently only stored at Lucas Heights. Many government members want to increase our nuclear capacity towards nuclear energy. If we were to do that, the amount of storage that would have to be found for intermediate- and high-level waste would have to increase dramatically. And yet, after four decades, we are only now coming to the pointy end of a process to find storage places for intermediate-level waste. It shows the complications, it shows the sensitivities and it shows the range of voices that we need to be looking at and bringing with us in this discussion.

I think it is worth mentioning the events leading up to this, where First Nations people did have a say. Not one First Nations person who had a vote in the Kimba process voted for this nuclear site. While I acknowledge that the Kimba region may have a range of economic challenges that the government should be looking at—and the government should be looking at investing in that region, along with many other regions around the country—simply looking at this as the only option is also not true.

Any site that we decide on, any site with this intermediate-level nuclear waste, would have to be left alone for literally thousands of years. So it is only right that we get this right, that we take the time to make sure that people and communities are brought with us, because any product that we leave in one place will have to be left there for thousands of years. It begs the question: if this has to be done right and if this product has to be left for thousands of years, why can't the government simply wait until the Senate inquiry has done its job in order to come back and present this bill to this House? Why are the government forcing this bill through the House, showing an attitude of not bringing people with them but, rather, neglecting people along this process for something that literally has consequences for thousands of years?

While the member for Grey might be happy to have all of the economic benefits of having a nuclear waste site on his private property, it doesn't make it an easy or right decision. Therefore, as quite rightly pointed out by the member for Gorton, we don't support this bill in its current form. We don't support the timing of this bill. In any consideration of the sensitivities of such a decision as where nuclear waste will end up sitting for thousands of years in Australia, surely we can wait a little bit longer and get this right and listen to all of the different considerations that will be undertaken via the Senate committee.

Any site has a cost to the environment, any site has a cost to build the new facility and any site has a cost to the community that it eventually will sit in. Ultimately uranium is something that Australia has in abundance, but the demand for uranium is not dramatically increasing across the world. Nuclear technology is not the preferred technology when it comes to energy generation across the world. While the world is generating far more energy, the amount of nuclear technology is remaining relatively stable. The amount of government subsidies that are required to produce new nuclear technology is immense, and the only countries that are doing it are doing it heavily subsidised by government. This government ultimately need to make a choice: are they going to find a facility and a nuclear waste site for our medical technology that brings along the communities with it or are they going to force it through without listening to the voices who are affected? It is not just about the people living there now; it is the people living there for generations to come. These are momentous decisions and these are difficult decisions, and we need to get this right. That is why the order of this bill is crucial.

I'll finish on once again reiterating my opposition to the large scale up of our nuclear capability towards nuclear energy. While medical technology is crucial—and we have all had family members who have benefited from having nuclear technology available and nuclear medicines available—we do not have an option; we need that technology in order to help treat people. We do have an option when it comes energy. We do have an option to look at cheaper, safer, reliable sources of energy that do not require the massive government expenditure that nuclear energy would require. This debate highlights the very, very difficult task of finding a place to hold nuclear waste. It is something that the nuclear industry has not been able to solve in its 70 years of being in existence. That is a part of the supply chain and the cycle that we have not found an answer for.

In Australia we are not immune. We need to find a safe place to hold our low-level and intermediate-level waste, but we also must move cautiously through this process, because the consequences are here for thousands of years. We also must take this opportunity to reiterate that moving towards nuclear energy capability in this country would be a bad move for our environment and for the Australian people. Most of all, it makes absolutely zero economic sense. We will have a robust, strong defence if the government and the minister try to push it through.

See this speech in context