Geoff Prosser (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, I present the committee’s report entitled Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper

This is a report of the committee’s case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources—a most controversial issue. It is a particular pleasure for me to announce that the committee has produced a unanimous report. Australia possesses some 38 per cent of the world’s low-cost recoverable uranium resources, and this immense resource endowment has an in-ground value of some $270 billion. Australia’s uranium represents a vast energy resource and is our second largest energy export.

I note that just one tonne of uranium contains the same amount of energy as 20,000 tonnes of black coal. This is of great importance given the prediction that the world’s energy needs will double in the period to 2050—particularly in rapidly developing countries such as China, where one-quarter of the world’s projected increase in electricity production to 2030 will occur. However, despite possessing almost 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, and perhaps more, Australia accounts for only 23 per cent of world production and consistently lags behind Canada, which has less than half of Australia’s uranium resources.

The committee has identified a range of impediments to increased uranium production and urges that these be addressed. However, the main impediment to the growth of the uranium industry in Australia is, undoubtedly, the prohibition on uranium mining—and even uranium exploration in some states. The committee is unanimous in its belief that the present restrictions on uranium mining are illogical, inconsistent and anticompetitive. The committee concluded that state policies preventing development of new uranium mines should be reversed and laws restricting uranium mining and exploration should be repealed.

An underlying impediment not only to the growth of the uranium industry but also to Australia’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle more generally is widespread misconceptions of the risks associated with uranium mining and nuclear power. In breaking through the many myths and exaggerations surrounding three key issues of nuclear waste, safety and weapons proliferation, the committee hopes the report will aid in improving public understanding of uranium and the nuclear energy industries and will correct the widely held misconceptions which have for so long impeded the development of these industries in Australia.

The committee was asked to consider the potential greenhouse gas emission benefits from further uranium production. The evidence on this issue is clear: Australia’s uranium exports currently displace some 395 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, relative to the use of black coal. This is an immense saving on greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise contribute to global warming; moreover, Australia’s total low-cost uranium reserves could displace nearly 40,000 million tonnes of CO, if they replaced black-coal electricity generation.

If the world were not using nuclear power, CO emissions from world electricity generation would be some 17 per cent higher and global emissions of CO would be some 2.5 billion tonnes higher per year. In view of the projected growth in world energy demand and the imperative of large developing nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, the committee is certain that, with the immense endowment of uranium, Australia is uniquely placed to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction through the increased production and supply of uranium. The committee believes that Australia should throw the world a climate lifeline. Australia’s uranium is, as the title of the report states, a ‘greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry’ country.

In turning from the past, where Australia consistently missed opportunities to add value to its uranium resource, a majority of the committee also recommended that the federal and state governments now prepare for the possible establishment of a fuel cycle industry in Australia: firstly, by establishing that no value-adding could occur domestically, while meeting nonproliferation objectives—for example by operating a uranium enrichment facility on a multilateral basis with countries in our region either using or proposing to use nuclear fuel; and, secondly, by developing an appropriate licence regulatory regime that meets world’s best practice.

The committee is unanimous in its recommendation that the Australian government take decisive action to rebuild and expand the nation’s nuclear skills base and expertise. While the committee recognises that nuclear power may not be immediately competitive in the Australian context, a majority of the committee concludes that, subject to appropriate regulatory oversight, utilities that choose to construct nuclear power plants in Australia should be permitted to do so.

In closing, I thank my committee colleagues for their thought and input into this inquiry. I express my particular thanks to members of the committee from the opposition. I thank the committee secretary for this demanding report and I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start where the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources finished. Every member of our committee thanks the secretary of this committee, Mr Russell Chafer; the inquiry secretary, Mr Jerome Brown; the research officers, Mr Muzammil Ali and Ms Peggy Danaee; and the administrative officer, Ms Penelope Humphries. We thank you not only for the support you have given but also for the superb research and the excellent writing of this report, which is the best written report ever presented to this parliament. All of its 688 pages clearly outline the situation we face with respect to Australia’s uranium industry and our exports to the world and the changes there have been in past decades in terms of the development of nuclear power and the development of different forms of the use of nuclear energy.

It also gives us a prospective look at fourth- and fifth-generation reactors and alternatives—dealt with clearly in the evidence we have taken. It deals with the fact that not only can we be the biggest exporter of uranium in the world but also that the world has two significant alternatives with regard to the use of nuclear power, and these alternatives are canvassed in the report. The first is simply to use uranium in a different way—that is, instead of using it once, the products of the uranium fuel cycle are utilised over and over again so that the plutonium that is produced is used up and no longer becomes a danger to the world for hundreds of thousands of years but for in the order of 300,000 years, in which case the storage of that material in a safe way becomes an entirely different issue from what has been faced by the world so far.

It is also possible that, instead of just producing 38 per cent of the world’s uranium, Australia could be the leading producer of thorium. If thorium were used as a source of nuclear power—and some countries are already looking at building thorium reactors—we could be a supplier. The use of thorium would eliminate the possible deleterious effects through the plutonium cycle. The use of thorium as a basis of the civil use of nuclear power would be another solution for a world concerned about the problems with the nonproliferation treaty. Those who gave evidence in respect of fusion argued that a fusion reactor could have been built 50 years ago. Many countries have now put their money where it is needed into research and development of a major fusion reactor in France.

There are possibly other ways to deal with this. Why have we not done anything about this over the past 30 years? Why did this groundbreaking work have to be initiated by a parliamentary committee? Why is it that the debate in Australia took all this time to get going? Why did it take the work of this committee to spark off discussion by the Prime Minister, the minister and everyone else in the country on the issue of uranium? I will give you a very simple quote from one of the people who gave evidence to the committee. They said:

It is easier to sell fear than it is reason.

For 30 years we have been dominated by fear of the nuclear cycle and the intersection of nuclear civil power and weapons—which of course came first. Fear can only be dispelled from the human mind and heart by knowledge and a scientific approach based on fact, not by the engendering of fear itself. That is why it was critical that members of the committee strove for a balanced, open approach based on scientific fact, not one based on the spread of fear and alarm. Our future is dependent on that.

One thing that might sum up this report is its recognition of people’s concern—and so they should be concerned—about climate change. The very title of the report, Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world, reflects that concern. When I was driving to Canberra last night for a ballot today, I heard a report on jellyfish and the explosion in their numbers around the world. The world’s oceans are warming and, as they warm, there has been an explosion in the number of phytoplankton. This phytoplankton is being eaten by increasing numbers of krill. The jellyfish are eating the krill, and this has helped to expand their numbers dramatically.

As nuclear power stations around the world, including US nuclear-powered ships moving their way through the oceans, draw in seawater to cool their reactors—they are not fourth- or fifth-generation reactors—they also draw in jellyfish, which can then stop reactors from working. The problem will have to be fixed by those countries that currently take Australian uranium. It is an indication of how the natural world is responding to what we have done. (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Forrest wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.