Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 seeks to repeal and replace the coalition’s Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 to establish a national radioactive waste management facility for low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste. While the bill seeks to repeal the coalition’s act, fundamentally this bill still maintains, for the purposes of the establishment of a national facility, many of the clauses contained in the current legislation.

From the outset, I indicate that the coalition does not oppose the passage of the bill, as it is has been a longstanding policy of the coalition to establish a central waste repository for the storage of Australia’s low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Whilst that is a long-term policy of the coalition, it is new-found wisdom for the Labor Party and current federal government. Such a repository would have been delivered long ago if it were not for the blatant hypocrisy of state and federal Labor governments who, at every opportunity, sought to thwart the establishment of such a facility for their puerile form of populist politics.

The coalition, for the 11½ years of the Howard government, sought to act in the national interest and construct a repository in a suitable location based on the highest level of scientific assessment of suitability. At every single opportunity state and federal Labor attempted to hamper this process despite the fact that they first began the search for a national repository and first trucked federal radioactive waste to Woomera in the time of the Keating government. The Minister for Resources and Energy argues that this bill implements an ALP election commitment to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005. Whilst this bill does repeal the act, it does so merely by replicating many of the clauses of the existing act in this current bill. Labor are seeking to implement a policy that the Howard government advocated strongly but which the current federal government opposed consistently when in opposition. For all of Labor’s bluster about the coalition being obstructionist, we are not as hypocritical in opposition as they were during the Howard government. The coalition support good policy in the national interest. We always have; we always will. In fact, our support of good policy, particularly under the Hawke-Keating government, is on the record, and I suggest that the Labor government look hard at it and that, when their turn comes—and may it be soon—to return to opposition they make a more constructive fist of it than they did last time. The Rudd Labor government have not sought to implement much good policy, and that is why from time to time we find, both in this House and in the other place, that we are forced to amend, not vote for or vote down their proposals.

The coalition is supporting this bill as it is coalition policy to have a sensible and coordinated approach to radioactive waste. When the tables were reversed in 2005, Labor in opposition voted against the coalition’s legislation to allow for a national radioactive repository. They voted against it, and now they have introduced a bill that tinkers at the margins with the existing legislation and, as I say, exposes the sheer hypocrisy of those on the other side who wish to use populist politics of fear and lack of facts in arguments against nuclear energy and nuclear waste.

Unlike Labor in opposition, the coalition have enough concern for the national interest to put petty politics aside and support this bill. But make no mistake: nobody should believe Labor’s bluster about coalition policy; if the government put forward decent policy the coalition will support it. The coalition appreciate that most Australians benefit either directly or indirectly from the medical, scientific and industrial use of radioactive materials—and I am one of those—and that, while safe, the current storage of radioactive waste across this country is not ideal. In fact, that is an optimistic view. When I was Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, I remember the campaigns run by those who now sit on the other side when we tried to progress issues in relation to the storage of nuclear waste and proposals to give consideration to including nuclear energy in our future mix. I remember the rubbish that went on about the dangers of nuclear waste, yet their counterparts in Labor governments around Australia have now been exposed for storing radioactive waste in containers in the middle of car parks, in the basement of hospitals and in the bottom of government buildings in the middle of cities, and it is great to see their hypocrisy completely exposed on this matter. If this sort of stupidity persists in the area of nuclear energy, we will again see the day when they have to capitulate on the basis of common sense.

Nuclear energy has a role to play in Australia just as the use of nuclear medicine has a role. Nuclear energy is used in every other OECD economy in the world. It is not used here because of the politicisation, scare tactics and cheap populism of those who sit opposite. If ever there were a time for leadership on clean energy, if ever there were a time for these people to stop their hypocrisy, if ever there were a time to plan for Australia’s clean energy future, it is now. Yet they continue to run this line that everything nuclear is dangerous.

11:59:26

We have got them a little way on this. We have got them to accept that radioactive waste in Australia is a reality; that there are Australians alive today—and I am one of them—because of radiotherapy, because of nuclear medicine. They accept that, begrudgingly, now that they are in government—now that they actually have to behave responsibly—but they did not accept it when they were in opposition. May the day come when that argument transposes into the reality that with nuclear power there have been fewer deaths per terawatt-hour produced than with any other form of energy. May they come to the realisation that without nuclear power Australia is committing itself to a long-term future of high-emission energy.

I return to the bill. While safe, as I said, the current storage of radioactive waste in Australia needs to be improved. There has been broad consensus on the need for a national repository for almost two decades. Australia’s current radioactive waste totals around 4,020 cubic metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate-level waste, and about 600 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate waste, including 32 cubic metres arising from the return from reprocessing internationally of ANSTO’s spent research reactor fuel, which is due to return to Australia in 2015-16—nearly five years from now. It is lucky that we will not have the international embarrassment of having waste returned to us and having nowhere to put it—lucky the Labor Party finally decided to acknowledge their hypocrisy and see common sense. A Senate committee in 2005 highlighted:

The amount of low-level and short-lived intermediate level waste that Australia produces every year is also low by international standards. Each year, Australia produces approximately 40 cubic metres of such a radioactive waste, less than the volume of one shipping container. By comparison, Britain and France each produce around 25,000 cubic metres of low-level waste annually.

However, as we have said for many years, it is sensible to find an appropriate site for the storage of such waste. As the coalition knows only too well, the search for a suitable site for a national radioactive waste repository has been a long one, frustrated by the Australian Labor Party at every stage. That is why this bill has a strong stench of hypocrisy about it. The search commenced during the term of the last Labor government. In September 1991 the then primary industries minister, now the Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, officially sought the participation of all state and territory governments in a coordinated search for a site for a single national radioactive waste facility. In August 1994, the then Labor government announced that CSIRO radioactive soil waste and other radioactive waste from ANSTO would be moved to the Department of Defence facility at Woomera for interim storage. The South Australian Labor Party turned a blind eye on that occasion to the Keating convoy transporting around 120 semitrailer loads of radioactive waste to Woomera in 1994-95.

This was also when the federal Labor Party listed the central north of South Australia as one of the possible sites for the repository. In 1996 the coalition government gave in-principle support to a national store in response to a Senate committee inquiry, and in 1997 the Commonwealth-State Consultative Committee on Radioactive Waste Management also reached an in-principle agreement on the need for a national radioactive waste repository. A number of further site selection studies subsequently occurred until it was announced in May 2000 that the search for a suitable location for the repository had been narrowed to five sites in central northern South Australia.

After forming government in 2002, the Rann Labor government, in a sign of pure populist politics—I hope the people in South Australia are remembering this—that has become synonymous with that government, announced that they opposed the creation of a waste repository in South Australia. The state that was basing its future economy on mining, and a big piece of that future mining operation was uranium, said they would not take radioactive waste. What absolute hypocrites. It was as if they did not produce any radioactive waste of their own—of course they did. Like all Australians, like all human beings, South Australians were benefiting from the use of nuclear medicine—were benefiting from radiotherapy and were seeing lives saved. Despite the economic wealth that that state was reaping and the obvious benefits to the community of the use of nuclear medicine, the government of that state—a government which is standing for re-election on Saturday—said no, they were just going to play political games, as they have in myriad areas over the term of their government. They said, ‘No, we will not have the repository.’ They used every trick in the book, including legislation and the court system, to frustrate the establishment of a national repository, despite agreeing in principle that one was required—a typical lack of leadership which now so highlights the failings of the Rann government.

Two of the preferred sites in South Australia passed environmental assessment, and a site of 40 acres on a pastoral lease 20 kilometres west of Woomera was named as the preferred site. Premier Rann is the Prime Minister’s biggest supporter—the only state premier not to ask for more details about the hospital plan before offering his wholehearted support and commitment. Again, you would wonder why—it has nothing to do with the election! I wonder whether Premier Rann would have been so obstructionist if he had been dealing with a federal Labor government, given that the South Australian Labor Party did not so much as bat an eyelid when Premier Keating trucked into Woomera 2,000 cubic metres of low-level waste and 35 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste without any public consultation.

In July 2005, the coalition government decided it would proceed to build a site for Commonwealth generated radioactive waste on Commonwealth land. We had conceded that the lack of leadership and the obstructionist attitude of the Labor Party, particularly in South Australia, had meant that we had to make another decision and quickly. In making that decision we stated that each state and territory would be required to build their own facility to house waste generated by their agencies within their respective states. I note with interest but not surprise that no Labor state government has moved to develop such a facility. We have seen them deny the existence of radioactive waste storage in their own cities. We have seen them deny the existence of radioactive waste in government owned buildings. They did nothing. It is typical of Labor governments—talk, talk, talk and nothing happens. Luckily, the parliament passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act in late 2005. This legislation—which was opposed at every step by the current government, by the Labor Party, in this House—facilitated the search for a site in the Northern Territory. Labor voted against the coalition’s bill at the second and third readings. The act specified three defence sites in the Northern Territory for further site investigation and facilitated nominations for other sites in the Northern Territory, including from a land council.

In 2007, the Howard government announced that the Northern Land Council’s nomination of Ngapa land as a potential site for the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility had been accepted. In fact, as they always do, Indigenous communities were prepared to show leadership even when the Labor Party did not. This site was nominated under the existing act and a site nomination deed was entered into in 2007 between the Commonwealth and the traditional owners, which also permits the nomination of other sites by the Northern Land Council on this land. Labor has indicated that they will honour this deed and the current bill permits this.

Federal Labor called the coalition’s decision to locate Commonwealth radioactive waste repository on Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory a ‘fiasco’ and the 2005 legislation as riding ‘roughshod over the rights of all Territorians and Australians’. I wonder what they are saying today. I wonder what the member for Lingiari is saying as he travels around the Northern Territory. I wonder what the Prime Minister is saying. I wonder if they are actually prepared to admit they got it so badly wrong.

The Labor opposition that voted against the coalition’s bill in 2005 is now, in government, proposing a bill that is very similar—in fact, almost identical—in content and will likely result in the same outcome. Unlike Labor, the Northern Land Council took a particularly mature and responsible leadership approach during the debate on the 2005 legislation and the coalition applauds them for their approach. We are pleased that the government have indicated that they will honour the site nomination deed that was entered into between the Commonwealth and the traditional owners in 2007 in relation to a potential site on Ngapa land. If only Labor had had enough foresight in opposition to acknowledge that a national repository was a sensible approach that required strong and decisive action. The coalition highlighted, when we were seeking federal Labor’s support for our approach, that the current approach to storage by state governments meant that in basements in universities, hospitals and car parks across this country low-level radioactive waste was being stored—safe but not ideal.

Overall, the establishment of a national radioactive waste repository is a longstanding coalition policy that was frustrated by Labor for the entirety of the Howard government. It is much more sensible for waste to be stored in a specially designated facility rather than in ad hoc sites across the country. Further, there is a contractual obligation on Australia to accept the return of waste shipped overseas for reprocessing in the mid-1990s. Labor has a longstanding history of playing politics on this issue, refusing to support action in the national interest, but the coalition is putting sensible policy ahead of populist politics in helping to facilitate the passage of this bill. That is in stark contrast to the lack of leadership we have seen not only from those who sit opposite but also from the South Australian Premier and the Labor Party in general. I have to say that I am pleased that something good has come out of this delay and this hypocrisy—that is, this facility will be able to deal with that state owned nuclear waste. That is the only good thing that has come out of a decade and a half of hypocrisy from the Labor government.

Having settled this issue—and assuming that they can actually hold their ground and see this facility built—the next challenge for the Labor Party will be to see if they can have a scientific, fact based debate on the inclusion of nuclear energy in Australia’s future. I am not saying we need a power station in everyone’s backyard, but I am sure the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will say that. I am not saying that we need to rely heavily, or even to the percentage that we rely on coal, on low-cost, baseload energy, but I am saying it is totally irresponsible for this country to continue to go forward in a climate challenged world striving for reliable, low-emission energy and not to have a sensible discussion about nuclear energy and the role it plays. I know—and I will not embarrass them—there are those who sit on the other side of this chamber who support nuclear energy, who understand fully the importance it plays all over the world, who understand fully the standard of living it secures all over the world, who understand fully the economic development it secures all over the world and, most importantly, who understand that at the moment it is the only clean energy baseload supply other than hydro—which will not be built in Australia in the future—that we can rely on.

So, having made the only sensible decision on the storage of nuclear waste, the question for the government is: can they be big enough, can they show enough leadership and can they set aside their political opportunism and participate in a debate that will secure Australia’s future? I challenge them to that and I support the bill.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Groom for his contribution. I rise to speak on theNational Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 and the importance of it to our country’s future. This bill seeks to establish at a single site a facility for managing radioactive waste that is generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth—waste that is currently stored at a host of locations across the country. It also outlines nomination, approval and selection processes that will lead to a site being acquired by the Commonwealth in order for this facility to be established. The bill will repeal and replace the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

I have elected to speak on this bill because it is important that people understand the absolute necessity of the changes that we will make. This bill will put in place measures that will effectively and efficiently select a location for the establishment of a radioactive waste management facility. It is fundamentally and critically essential to the future of our country that this bill is passed so that the changes it introduces can come to fruition. The situation as it currently stands is as follows: our country has accumulated approximately 4,000 cubic metres of low-level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste over the past 50 years through important medical, industrial and research use of radioactive material. This waste is currently stored in interim facilities which include a multitude of small stores located in suburban and regional areas across Australia. None of these facilities are purpose-built for the disposal and storage of radioactive waste.

It is undeniable that the current interim facilities which are not purpose-built to handle radioactive waste will not last for ever and will reach capacity. To prove this point, I bring attention to the fact that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s existing low-level waste store at Lucas Heights is already approaching capacity. To make matters more urgent, we have 32 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate radioactive waste returning to Australia in 2015-16 in the form of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s spent research reactor fuel—that is to say, 32 cubic metres of radioactive waste that will need safe and effective storage. It is simply irrefutable that we must act now to establish a storage facility that is suitable for this waste. With current facilities reaching capacity, this leaves only one viable and possible solution: a facility must be established that is purpose-built to manage both the arrival of this radioactive waste and all future radioactive waste that is generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, the approval, construction and commissioning phases of a project to establish this facility will require at least a minimum of four to five years lead time. If we are to prepare for the arrival of the radioactive waste in 2015-16, we must act now and put in place the measures in this bill to ensure that we as a country are ready to handle this challenge and the future challenges we face in managing our radioactive waste. By establishing a facility for the purpose of storing and disposing of this waste, we can protect our future by ensuring that our country is able to continue to reap the benefits of using important radioactive materials.

There are many, many benefits that people may not realise come from the use of radioactive materials. The use of these materials is important in many industries in Australia, particularly in vital medical research. To provide an example of this, radioisotopes are used in medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment. Radioisotopes can help speed up diagnosis of cancer, helping to pinpoint the exact area affected, and are an incredibly effective method of treating cancers. The use of radioisotopes benefits approximately 500,000 patients annually. This is a massive number of people who, in effect, benefit from the use of radioactive materials. But, of course, with great benefit comes the reality that we must deal with the waste produced from the beneficial use of these materials. We cannot continue to reap the benefits without accepting responsibility for the waste. And whilst the interim facilities we have at current are filling this role, a long-term solution must be found. Fortunately, this bill provides us with the means to achieve this solution.

This bill provides an outline for nomination, approval and selection processes that will lead to a site being acquired by the Commonwealth. Part of the bill also provides procedural fairness on decisions about the site and where the facility should be built. This bill will introduce procedural fairness into the process of establishing a radioactive waste storage facility. We as a government recognise the fact that it would be irresponsible to simply decide on a location for the facility. It is necessary for the people to be heard, especially the people who will be impacted upon by the establishment of a facility. The current act provides that no person is entitled to procedural fairness in relation to the key decisions to be made under the act. This is utterly irresponsible and completely out of touch. This bill will require the government to accord procedural fairness in relation to such decisions. By taking into consideration the opinions of those people impacted upon, we can ensure that the location of a facility is appropriate and that it is satisfactory to the affected parties.

In addition to the introduction of procedural fairness in relation to decisions, this bill will also amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 so that it will now apply to declarations and decisions made by the minister under this bill. This means that, unlike the current legislation where key decisions are not susceptible to review under this act, decisions will be reviewable under this bill. The introduction of procedural fairness and the introduction of key decisions being susceptible to review will enable the facility to be established at a site that is most suitable. The first step in establishing a facility is to identify a site for its establishment. The nomination, approval and selection processes needed in order for this to be achieved have been outlined in this bill. While the establishment of a facility is critically important, it is also vital that the facility is established on the most appropriate site.

Several sites were identified and nominated under the current legislation. In 2007, a site on Ngapa clan land at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory was nominated and approved as a site under the current act. As a result of this a site nomination deed was entered into between the Commonwealth, the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust and the Northern Territory Land Council. Provisions present in this bill will enable the Commonwealth to act in good faith and good spirit with respect to the site nomination deed and ensure the site remains an approved site. However, procedural fairness requirements will apply to any decision to select this site as the site for a facility.

Three sites on Defence land in the Northern Territory that were identified by the former government have been removed from further consideration. These sites include the locations identified at Harts Range and Mount Everard in the Alice Springs region and at Fishers Ridge in the Katherine region. In order for more sites to be nominated this bill provides that a land council in the Northern Territory may nominate land as a potential site, but procedural fairness will apply to any decisions to approve that potential site.

This bill also provides that the minister may open a nationwide volunteer site-nomination process. The current act does not allow for nationwide nominations; it allows that a site can be selected only in the Northern Territory. In deciding to allow such nominations, the minister would need to have regard to whether it is unlikely that a facility will be able to be constructed and operated on Aboriginal land that has been nominated land as a potential site under the bill. Procedural fairness will apply to any decision in relation to the opening of a nationwide volunteer site-nomination process.

Once a site has been nominated it must go through a selection process. This bill allows relevant persons to conduct activities for the purpose of selecting a site. These include low-level impact activities such as geological investigations, archaeological and heritage investigations and collection of samples of flora and fauna. Cautious and comprehensive evaluation is necessary to verify whether a site is suitable for a facility. This is to ensure that the radioactive waste can be managed safely without putting at risk the protection of people and the environment.

This bill is imperative for the future of our country. It is in our national interest. We are currently storing radioactive waste in interim facilities that are beginning to fill to capacity. These facilities are only interim facilities and as such are not designed for long-term storage of radioactive waste. Measures need to be put in place to ensure our country is prepared to manage our radioactive waste in the future. Given that we have a four- to five-year lead-up for approval and other related matters, it is essential that the process begin as soon as possible. It is also important that procedural fairness apply to decisions relating to the selection of a site and opening a nationwide volunteer site-nomination process. There is no denying people being heard.

This bill will enable our government to ensure the storage and disposal of radioactive waste is handled appropriately in accordance with procedural fairness and to ensure the site to construct a management facility is found in a timely fashion to prepare for the 32 cubic metres of radioactive waste that will return to Australia in 2015-16. It is irrefutable that radioactive waste must be managed appropriately to ensure it is safely and effectively stored and disposed of. We must act quickly to prepare for this. If we are to continue to reap the benefits of the use of radioactive materials in the future, a long-term sustainable waste management facility must be established. The solution to both the arrival of this waste and the future sustainable use of radioactive material is the establishment of a purpose-built facility. This bill provides the means for this to be achieved. It is for these reasons that I fully support the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 and commend it to the house.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. Labor has belatedly accepted the necessity for a radioactive waste facility after typically in opposition embarking on a scare campaign regarding a radioactive waste repository. Now in government, they have belatedly come to accept the political, economic and scientific reality with regard to setting up a nuclear waste repository. This is given that in a few short years we will have the legal requirement to take back the waste generated by the Lucas Heights facility. It has to be remembered that the benefits that accrue from this facility—be they for fundamental science, applied science or nuclear medicine—are huge and far outweigh the small negatives associated with it.

This brings up another nuclear related issue—that is, the issue of nuclear power. This is an issue that the technologically illiterate Rudd government choose to not even communicate or debate on. Instead, they proffer either various technologies that will be introduced in the never-never or some technological pixie dust that they see as solving all their problems. The most compelling argument for nuclear power has nothing to do with climate science. As an aside, it is interesting how the whole environmental debate has become a glorified carbon dioxide tax debate. Where is the concern for the real environmental issues that are killing people today and not for some supposition about some people who may be impacted in some distant time period? Consider, for example, particulate emissions from diesel and coal fired power stations. These emissions kill approximately 3,000 people every year. You never hear about them despite this being approximately double the national road toll. Why don’t we debate that?

I will go back to nuclear power. The most compelling argument for nuclear power has to be the economics of electricity generation. I shall outline here the economic benefits, the renaissance of the nuclear energy industry, the safety issues and the progress in nuclear technology. The price of electricity is increasing. In Western Australia the average power bill will rise by $220 next year and gas will cost families about $35 a year more. Quite simply, for nuclear energy to become a reality it has to be economically viable. With increasing power prices the argument for nuclear becomes more compelling every day.

Consider this thought on the viability of nuclear energy: if the cost of nuclear energy were indeed prohibitive and thus economically uncompetitive, there would be no need to outlaw nuclear energy by legislation. After all, what company would build an uncompetitive power station? When you run the numbers, nuclear power is an economically competitive technology. It is significantly cheaper than wind or solar, though it is marginally more expensive than coal in the current Australian context. The capital costs associated with nuclear power are more than for coal and significantly greater than for gas, but these are outweighed when it comes to the cost of the fuel. A briefing by General Electric, which builds nuclear power stations, gas fired power stations, wind and solar, indicated that, in the case of the US, nuclear power was the cheapest method of generating power. Similarly, Eskom, the utility providing 95 per cent of South Africa’s electricity, showed data that nuclear is the cheapest method of power generation—despite South Africa, like Australia, having abundant cheap coal.

The US has begun opening up new nuclear stations under President Barack Obama. At the same time, the United Kingdom is opening up new nuclear power stations and South Korea has recently opened up new reactors as well. Nuclear power is an economically viable choice for baseload power. President Obama has committed the US to a significant expansion in its commercial nuclear power industry, a process that halted after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979. It must be noted here that no lives were lost in and no injuries resulted from this accident.

Interestingly, Kevin Rudd, in stark contrast, will not even countenance a detailed debate on the issue in the Australian context, so hypocritical is he. There are some inherent contradictions and breakdowns in logic in Mr Rudd’s attitude. There are no valid reasons for banning nuclear power in the Australian context, but he is blinkered by a 1970s antinuclear mindset—or perhaps, being a spin cycle politician, he simply uses that expedient argument as the basis for yet another fear campaign. He is certainly not actively evaluating alternatives. If Kevin Rudd genuinely believes that nuclear power presents a clear danger for Australia, then I believe that he is being grossly irresponsible to say the least, not only in continuing to export uranium but in opening up the first new mine in years.

While it is true that nuclear power has had a relative hiatus over the last couple of decades, it is a fact that there are massive expansions in the pipeline in the US, Europe and Asia. Australia stands to lose by not being in the game, both in power generation and in the intellectual capacity to compete in this rapidly advancing technological industry. New nuclear power stations can be constructed and become operational within five years of the first sod being turned, but approvals tend to slow the process down—regardless, I must add, of the electricity-generating method employed. It should be remembered that the first commercial nuclear power station began generating electricity a mere 12 years after the first employment of the atomic bomb. There was no corporate memory of how to achieve nuclear power generation; they had to start from scratch. This was an amazing achievement.

The economic benefit of nuclear power is self-evident. If the method were economically uncompetitive, why bother banning it? No company would choose to lose money. The final decision on which technology to use should be the generators’ and thus the market’s. As such, legislation should encompass issues relating to safety and emissions but not prescribe which method may or may not be employed to generate electricity. Despite the best attempts of green groups, the question of safety is no longer an issue. New generation IV reactor designs will be built to such a level of safety specifications that the physics of a meltdown are impossible—no China syndrome. Advanced generation III reactors similarly have an extremely high safety factor. Simply put, the safety of these reactors renders safety arguments for not using nuclear power irrelevant. Essentially they are Homer Simpson-proof.

I noted in 4 March’s WA Business News that in terms of decommissioning nuclear power stations John Jacob stated:

You switch off the lights, lock the doors, and then nobody ever, ever goes there—ever again.

This is errant nonsense and totally disingenuous, which would make it precisely the sort of argument which this government would pick up. The fact is there are many nuclear power stations undergoing decommission worldwide. In the United States alone, seven commercial nuclear power stations have been completely decommissioned and returned to greenfield status, meaning that the site can be used for any purpose—including, dare I say, construction of a school or playground.

The issue of waste disposal is a major consideration with nuclear energy. There is a permanent repository underway in Sweden, but at present there are no others. The issue is one of a lack of political will. For the last 50 years the spent fuel has been stored in cooling ponds. Technology is moving on, however, and the fact that no fuel has yet been permanently sequestered may be a blessing in disguise. Some of the generation IV reactor designs use a fast neutron process, meaning that all the uranium is used rather than just the U235; thus the spent fuel rods will become a resource. When the fuel is depleted in these fast neutron reactors the waste form has a much shorter storage period than is required for current waste.

In the WA perspective most reactor designs are too large to swallow at a single gulp unless accompanied by the decommissioning of a coal fired or large gas fired power station. A Westinghouse AP600, generating 600 megawatts of electricity, would be appropriate. Given the time and approval period likely in the WA context, however, something like a pebble bed reactor, with 165-megawatt modules, would be ideal and could be easily incorporated into the grid. These reactors could, by virtue of high operating temperatures—which also mean very high thermodynamic efficiency—directly desalinate water or produce hydrogen as bonus operations. This would give the power station considerable flexibility of operation—something to think about in shaping our future energy market.

However, this government is far more interested in politics than in our future. Consider that energy is, after food, water and shelter, the major issue of concern for all generations and then consider how inept and disinterested this government is in this critical issue. There are a lot of platitudes about our energy future, particularly with regard to various renewable technologies that are in no position at present, and may never be, to provide baseload electricity. The government’s attitude reminds me of a T-shirt my wife gave me early in our relationship. The T-shirt had the heading ‘Wish or Work?’ and smaller print that had to do with needing to work to get anywhere. It is clear that this government does not want to put in the work behind setting up Australia’s energy future for the next half century. It simply wishes that renewables would cut it and that geosequestration will be feasible technically and economically, but is taking no steps.

So why have we banned nuclear power? Economics is a nonissue. As already stated, industry will not choose the technology if it is uncompetitive. Is it safety? I doubt it. Even with Chernobyl, nuclear power is demonstrably, by far, the safest method of generating power. I gave data to this House in a speech in March 2005, so I will not repeat it here. Furthermore, modern reactor designs are Homer Simpson-proof, with passive safety measures that mean there is no requirement for operator intervention. Generation IV designs will be inherently safe. Meltdown will be physically impossible due to the actual physics of the design.

It must be the waste? The simple fact is that waste is quite manageable and is actually, as I have already stated, a resource for the future. Fast neutron reactor designs use all the uranium, not just the U235, and there are two benefits that accrue. First, uranium will last at least 60 times longer than it does for slow neutron reactors, so whatever story you have heard about ‘we only have enough fuel for so many years’ you can multiply that number by at least 60. Then there is the situation that these reactors can use fuel spent in conventional reactors as fuel for the fast neutron reactors. The waste from these fast neutron reactors is safe to handle, literally, within 300 years, and that is certainly not a show stopper.

The reality here is that the Labor Party simply see this as a very convenient political scare campaign for elections. Shame on you for playing with our nation’s energy and technological future on the basis of political expediency! Just as with anthropogenic global warming, where there are many of you who do not agree with the so-called consensus position, there are many on your side who I know believe that Australia should have nuclear power. Shame on you for playing politics with our children’s and grandchildren’s futures! Don’t you have any desire to do what is in the national interest and the interest of our children’s futures rather than what is politically expedient in terms of the next election?

I have laid out the potential objections to nuclear energy, so I, as well as very many Australians, would like to know what your objections are, rather than simply hearing rhetoric. Let us have those objections, and let us have a national debate on the issue, with a view to repealing the ban on nuclear power generation—or, like the Prime Minister, is there a lack of the intestinal fortitude to even discuss what is in the national interest, as that would remove a potential scare campaign for the next election?

There are many factors related to nuclear energy and technology that we need to consider. In the Australian context, we could lose out on massive opportunities by ignoring a significant method of power generation, one that is likely to have major growth as well as technological opportunities. In my view, we need to become involved in the Generation IV International Forum. This is the forum that will shape the future of the nuclear power generation industry. This forum is involved in the standards for the various generation IV reactor designs that will proliferate in the near future. For us not to be involved in this will be similar to Australia missing the boat on transistors and solid state electronic circuitry in the 1950s. The assessment at that time was that it would be a niche electronic technology and the main game was, and would continue to be, thermionic valve technology. When was the last time you saw a valve in your local electronics store? We stand to miss the boat here as well technologically. Not only that but there will be a whole range of technological spin-offs that result from the forum that will either benefit us or cost us in the long term when it comes to both scientific expertise in high-tech industries and the royalties that accrue—or cost—in the intellectual property domain.

Looking a little further into the power generation future, it is clear that nuclear fusion—the power of the sun—will be the generation method of choice. In 1997 a critical result was obtained by the Joint European Torus program, or JET, investigating plasma fusion. At that time, for the first time, a Q factor, or energy out divided by energy in, exceeded one. That means that more energy was obtained from the fusion reaction than was needed to sustain the fusion reaction.

There is a very large multinational science program called ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, currently underway in France, where the Q factor will be between five and 10 if no more technological breakthroughs are obtained or higher if there are breakthroughs. Australia can become a minor partner in this program for a mere $63 million over 10 years. That is mere chump change when compared with the pink batts program and the fixes that are now required. We will, in decades to come, either benefit from the royalties and technologies which result from this, the world’s largest scientific experiment, or we will have to pay for the technologies, the development of which we could have been a part of. It really is time for Australia to become a significant player in high-tech industries.

We punch above our weight globally in scientific terms, and it is time for us to benefit from this. We will not be able to trade off and massively benefit from our mining sector forever. We need to diversify and spread our portfolio. So what is our future to be? Investing in our future, choosing to boldly face the challenges and embracing the opportunities that our highly educated population should grasp? Or do we go forth timidly, rejecting the bravery of our forebears who built this great nation, all on the altar of a scare campaign built on political expediency in the mere desire to cling to power?

Debate (on motion by Mr Clare) adjourned.