David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia has been at the forefront of nuclear science and technology since 1953 when the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established and operated two research reactors at Lucas Heights in Sydney;

(b) since the Australian Atomic Energy Commission became the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in 1987, it has operated the HIFAR Research Reactor, and subsequently the OPAL Research Reactor, which has delivered significant benefits for nuclear medicine in Australia and around the world;

(c) Australia has developed one of the world's leading regulatory and safety authorities to oversee the operation of its nuclear industries with the establishment of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency;

(d) Australia is a signatory to international non-proliferation treaties which is overseen by the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office; and

(2) considers the deployment of nuclear energy to deliver energy security for the nation, as part of Australia's transition to a decarbonised electricity grid, utilising emerging nuclear technologies such as Generation III+, Generation IV Small Modular Reactors and Micro Modular Reactors; and

(3) further considers the following legislative actions:

(a) removing the blanket prohibition on:

(i) the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving, or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in sections 37J, 140A and 146M, and paragraph 305(2)(d) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, by repealing those provisions; and

(ii) the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in section 10 of the

Australian Radiation Protection and Nu clear Safety Act 1998, by repealing that section;

(b) leaving unaffected:

(i) the other elements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, pursuant to which the Minister would assess any application to establish a facility previously named in the repealed provisions;

(ii) state and territory powers to protect their citizens and the environment from potential adverse radiation impacts; and

(iii) the power vested in the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether or not to issue a permit under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 for such a proposed facility.

During the 33 years I practised as a hospital doctor, from a junior intern through to a general internal medicine specialist, and for the last 22 years as a gastroenterologist, I and all the medical staff around me often used the miracle of modern medicine which utilises nuclear technology, including radionucleotide isotopes for iodine, technetium, molybdenum, X-rays or CAT scans, to diagnose and treat many conditions and, in many instances, cure cancers: breast, prostate, bowel, lung, brain or bone cancer and lymphoma; even overactive thyroid conditions use radioactive isotopes to calm the thyroid down. Yet, even though Australians and people around the world beg for and wish that they had access to that sort of technology and are happy to receive it, in Australia we have a schizoid response. When we apply to use the wonder that nature gave us of fission, of partially enriched uranium isotope 235, to boil water to very high temperatures and pressures, just like a coal-fired power plant does, and use that to run turbines which run electrical generators, like we have in all our coal plants or in hydro stations, people react, and we have legacy legislation prohibiting its exact use.

Why is it that people baulk? I think, having studied the psychology of this for many years, it's because people have had a trained emotional response because of the legacy fears about nuclear Armageddon as a result of the nuclear arms race. They've been misinformed or misled about the nature of what a powerplant is. A simple explanation is that it uses the wonders of fission with electrical rods that, when they get to a critical mass, heat up. The phenomenon of fission makes a lot of heat, just like the element of an old-fashioned kettle—you see those things around the ceramic base heating the water. Well, that's what happens in a nuclear power reactor, and that is enriched uranium—up to 4.9 per cent.

Mr Speaker, I want to reassure you that it is quite different from a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb needs 95 per cent enriched uranium—about 12 kilos of it—clustered in a little space, surrounded by huge amounts of physical explosive. There is no way a nuclear power reactor will ever become a nuclear bomb. Fukushima wasn't a nuclear bomb; it was a hydrogen gas explosion resulting from the intense heat because the cooling water stopped circulating. It wasn't a nuclear bomb. The Fukushima earthquake and tsunami killed 35,000 people. No people died from radiation exposure in Japan—not one, zippo, none.

But I will continue. Australia is already a nuclear-ready nation. We have operated three nuclear reactors for many years—since the 1950s in fact. We still operate the OPAL reactor in Lucas Heights, which is surrounded by suburbia where houses go for $3 million, and no-one bats an eyelid. We have 1,300 people employed in nuclear and scientific activities within ANSTO. We have the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, which monitors our compliance with all the nonproliferation treaties around the world. We have ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, which is a world-class institution. Australia is a part of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are a part of the fourth-generation nuclear power plants forum, called the Generation IV International Forum, which is researching and designing fourth-generation reactors. These are the newer and latest models, which will come into being in the next 10 or 15 years.

Now, I've visited Canada and America and I've looked at some of these new, small modular reactors that everyone's talking about. They are ready to roll. They are going through final licensing. They're not some far-off, distant development. They are a mini version and refined. Just like a Volvo car, the latest models are incredibly safe. They have lots of passive and safety features. Like the current mobile phones, they're quite different from the big bricks that you used to have to carry around as the first mobile phones. They're smaller and more powerful and they are safe. They have passive safety, and they won't be analysed until we remove the prohibitions in the ARPANS Act— (Time expired)

See this speech in context