Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I think this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your elevation to the Speaker's chair. Well done. I am sure you will do an outstanding job.

This bill concerns radiation protection and nuclear safety. When I first attended a political protest in 1983, I never imagined that I would be standing here in the Parliament of Australia speaking as a shadow minister on a bill which concerned the regulation of nuclear safety. That is not because becoming a member of parliament was a remote, if not unattainable, aspiration for someone of my background but because the protest I was attending actually concerned the question of nuclear weapons.

Back in those days, there was a very real concern that an accelerated arms race in nuclear weapons and the heightened Cold War tensions posed a near and present danger to our national security and the security of the entire globe. By 1986, just three years after I attended that protest, it was estimated that throughout the world there were 40,000 nuclear warheads, the equivalent of one million Hiroshima bombs. The prospect of a Dr Strangelove scenario was the stuff of nightmares, but, to many of us, it was also very real. Many people in this chamber will remember what it felt like to grow up with the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe within our lifetime.

I was reminded of those early political experiences last week when we marked the 40th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I remain opposed to nuclear weapons and share the concerns of all members of this House that the technology of fissile materials developed for peaceful purposes can be diverted for other reasons.

Australia has always been a responsible and proactive member of the international community when it comes to nuclear nonproliferation. We have made a substantial contribution, including through capacity-building programs, to strengthening nuclear safeguards and safety and security regimes. We have been particularly active in the Asia-Pacific region and we will continue to strongly support international efforts, including the imposition of a UN and autonomous sanction to confront proliferation threats posed by North Korea and Iran.

But we should never forget that nuclear technology can do a great deal of good. Australia has operated a research reactor since 1958, and it produces, amongst other things, medical isotopes that are used in hospitals and for treatments around the country. Literally thousands of people are alive today because of, or have had their lives enhanced by, this technology, and we must never forget that.

In 1973, the Australian Radiation Laboratory was established. It was responsible for providing advice to the government of the day and the community on the effects of radiation on health; undertaking groundbreaking research; and providing services in this area. It was in 1997 that ARPANSA was formed, when the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Nuclear Safety Bureau were merged, and that body continues to play a vital role. It is critical to scientific research, it regulates nuclear medicines and it advises governments and industry. It is also responsible for protecting the Australian people from the harmful effects of radiation.

During Labor's most recent time in government, ARPANSA made a great deal of progress and was very active. For example, in 2010 the Australian National Radiation Dose Register was established to provide an electronic database for workers exposed to radiation. This ensures that records of workers radiation doses are maintained in a centralised register, regardless of where the individual is working. Once again, Labor put the safety of workers first. It is no good conducting scientific research or protecting the Australian public if we are not protecting those people who are working directly with radioactive material. We have looked after them and we will continue to do that, and that is what this bill, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill, is about. So we take the issue of radiation and nuclear safety very seriously.

In our view, the bill strengthens the powers of ARPANSA, our nuclear safety agency. There are a number of changes to the licensing arrangements administered by ARPANSA, which will have the effect of improving safety and efficiency, and closing a number of loopholes identified in an audit conducted by the ANAO.

I note the recent submissions received by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for its inquiry on this bill—the committee has not yet reported. I thank the Senate and, in particular, the expert contributors to this process.

We will be supporting the bill in the House. We will look closely at any recommendations that are made by the Senate committee. This is an important part of public policy; a belt-and-braces approach is warranted. But, on the face of it, we believe this is a bill that Labor will be able to offer bipartisanship support for. Having a strong regulatory body for radiation protection and nuclear safety here in this country is something that should rise above the fray of partisan politics. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Mr Speaker, I add my congratulations to those that have already been offered on your elevation to high office. This bill amends the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to ensure that Australia's regulation of radiation activities remains at the forefront of international best practice. Drawing on the recommendations of various reviews and the experience of ARPANSA, this bill makes changes to the legislation to provide greater clarity regarding the reach of the legislation so that it improves risk management of radiation activities undertaken by Commonwealth entities and provides greater capacity for ARPANSA to act in the event of an emergency or noncompliance with the legislation.

It would be remiss of me to pass up this opportunity to discuss nuclear power in the main. I led the debate on nuclear power with a speech to parliament in March 2005. Nuclear power is cheap, clean, safe and sustainable. The challenges are as real as the opportunities are great. Having led the charge on the nuclear issue in this place in the past, I know that support for nuclear is not limited by party ties. There are real fears in the community about nuclear power, but let this not rule out or reduce the scope of our imagination or possibilities.

In 2005 I tried to ignite a national conversation regarding the use of nuclear power for domestic applications. In latter times I have spoken extensively about the incomparable benefits of adopting and/or just allowing a nuclear choice in terms of the potential submarine mix. Post Collins class, we all need to look at performance and value for money and an ability to protect Australia and our people. So, on whatever front one chooses to look—be it domestic energy generation, national defence or even nuclear waste storage—having a mature, reasoned and real debate can only be in Australia's interest. I welcome the royal commission in South Australia into nuclear.

It is well known that former Prime Minister Hawke is a strong supporter of using our vast desert interior for nuclear waste storage. This type of bravery and imagination is what will get Australia firing again. Australia stands to gain from lower electricity costs, increased competitiveness, greater national security independence and massive and sustainable employment for thousands. This new industry is so obvious and so possible. To those opposing the proposed debate, I say that now is the time to stop stopping and start starting—a new perspective, a new opportunity. George Bernard Shaw is often quoted as saying, 'I see things that never were and say, "Why not?"' Today the debate on nuclear is at the same turning point of history. The challenges of the future will only be greater.

The fact is there are things in the environment we all want—clean air, clean water, good food and reducing birth rates. Look at the countries in the world with the cleanest air, cleanest water, lowest birth rates and best food. They are all affluent. McNair Ingenuity Research showed that, between 1979 and 2009, those in favour of the construction of nuclear power stations increased from 34 per cent to 49 per cent, with around 10 per cent undecided. More people are in favour of nuclear power than are opposed. It is not the will of the people to take nuclear energy off the table. If the Greens and Labor do not embrace nuclear power as a possibility, then they are not serious in their assertions about reducing CO2 emissions. They also cannot continue to argue that we should have a nuclear ban as it is economically too expensive.

It is time to repeal section 10 of the ARPANSA Act 1998. It would remove a prohibition on a Commonwealth body operating a power reactor and would allow nuclear energy to be one of the options explored for most efficiently conserving and producing cleaner energy for Australia in the longer term. In the national interest, it is time to move past the politics of fear.

There has been a growing realisation in Europe and Asia that, for a variety of reasons, nuclear is the future. Poland is planning on having its first nuclear plant by 2020, and Britain has decided to replace its ageing reactors and create new sites. France, which is the nation most dependent on nuclear energy, with about 75 to 80 per cent of France's energy nuclear generated, has ordered its 61st nuclear generator. China's nuclear generation capacity is on track to go from nine gigawatts to 70 gigawatts by 2020—an enormous increase. An MIT report said that China may have to add as many as 200 nuclear power plants by 2050 to meet its energy demands. There is also a huge market in India, which has been a contentious issue that Australia cannot ignore. This new economic giant has 15 operating nuclear power plants and seven under construction. India knows that the only way to enhance the lives of its people is via access to power. Currently, an estimated 400 million Indians still have no access to electricity. Nuclear power can change that dramatically.

Going right back to the early history of mankind, each significant advancement in our civilisation has gone hand in hand with new energy sources. There were gradual developments in our civilisations over the following centuries but the next enormous, exponential leap in the development of human society, especially in the West, was the Industrial Revolution. That advance would have been impossible without a quantum leap in the development of energy sources—specifically, using coal to make steam, which literally drove the Industrial Revolution.

Thus energy became, once again, the literal driver of mankind's incredible advances over the last couple of centuries. And now, once again, energy is front and centre in the deliberations of many governments. The economic benefits to Australia of this initial step by the federal government would be huge. The mantra, over the last few weeks, has been the importance of keeping jobs in Australia to try and insulate us as much as possible from the disasters befalling the world economy. New projects, such as the expansion of current mines and the opening of new ones, will provide the very best economic stimulation possible. This means real jobs, real and significant infrastructure, real earnings from real wealth and, most importantly, creating wealth instead of borrowing it from future generations of Australians.

Finally, there is the ultimate flow-on effect from this and other similar arrangements which will surely come in the near future. Although European countries are now expressing renewed interest in nuclear power, there is one principal problem associated with this reawakening. There was flourishing nuclear science going on in parallel with the development of nuclear power in the fifties and sixties. Then, with a realigning of ideology to fit the antiprogressive theology of extreme and almost unquestioned green politics, these nuclear programs became unpopular in some countries. Germany, the UK and others, which had once embraced the new technology, were browbeaten by the disingenuous scare tactics of the Left to start winding back their nuclear programs. They started decommissioning nuclear power stations and basically recanted on their faith in nuclear power, on which they had previously relied to provide non-fossil fuel power for the future. France, of course, was an exception, because it had no natural energy resources of its own. Not surprisingly, France did not want to be beholden to other countries for gas or oil, so the preference for nuclear energy was easy. As the French say about nuclear power: no coal, no gas, no oil—no choice.

Now the other countries are coming around to their previous position and looking once again to nuclear power. They realise that nuclear power can carry them over at least the next century while new energy sources are being investigated and developed. The big problem is that, while their nuclear programs were up and running, they had the expertise to run these programs. With the winding back of nuclear energy programs, there was little or no renewal of this expertise. As the nuclear industry was diminishing, the men and women who were highly trained in this area were getting old and retiring. Thus, just when they are so badly needed, where are the nuclear scientists and technologists who will be needed to back up the increased demand for this energy? We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend we can somehow make do without nuclear energy, as the extreme so-called environmentalists do, or we can admit that energy is the key to the world's future, stop kidding ourselves about pie-in-the-sky energy sources and get real. Let us take this once-in-a-lifetime conjunction of events and make the most of it.

Another thing we should be talking about is putting money into research and development. We need to look at putting money into generation IV reactors, which have significant advantages over conventional reactors because not only, in many cases, can these reactors use the uranium resource for 50 to 60 times longer than conventional reactors but also they can use as fuel depleted fuel from conventional reactors, and the waste form that you are left with is literally safe to handle within a period of about 300 years. We should also be investing in thorium research. Once again, Australia has the largest thorium reserves in the world. Another technology that we should invest in—and this would even be for people who are somewhat paranoid about fission power—is nuclear fusion. At present there is a great international program called ITER—it stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—in France. It is one of the largest scientific projects in the world. In effect, it is a preproduction fusion prototype. This is a very clean energy resource, and I think it is foolhardy for Australia not to be involved. If we are not one of the major program partners we should certainly be one of the subpartners in the project, because Australia is one of the world's energy superpowers in terms of nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion. You can talk about uranium, you can talk about thorium and, indeed, you can talk about lithium, which is the feedstock for nuclear fusion. Western Australia has one of the largest resources of lithium in the world.

We should be looking at becoming more energy independent, and getting involved in these sorts of areas would certainly make us more energy independent. It is time for Australia to have a mature conversation about nuclear in the energy mix. It is time to get clear about the legislative context, and this new clear will be an all-clear for nuclear—an all-clear for jobs, growth and opportunity. As I have said many times before, it is time to stop stopping and start starting.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be summing up on the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill 2015. I thank the member for Tangney and the member for Throsby for their contributions. As we have discussed, this bill amends the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to ensure that Australia's regulation of radiation activities remains international best practice. Radiation protection and nuclear safety is a dynamic area. It is constantly evolving. International approaches and industry practice have changed a lot since 1998, and Australia needs to remain at the forefront of these changes. Australia is fortunate to have a strong regulator in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—ARPANSA. The regulatory scheme has stood the test of time and provided Australians with essential protections, but the time is right to update the legislation and to ensure that ARPANSA has the powers it needs for the decade ahead. To this end, this bill improves capacity for end to end risk management and provides ARPANSA with greater powers to monitor compliance with the legislation.

The amendments also support the CEO of ARPANSA to better respond in the event of an emergency by enabling the CEO to issue directions to licence holders to minimise any risks to people and the environment in unforeseen circumstances. Importantly, all action taken by ARPANSA in response to noncompliance or to emergencies will continue to be reported quarterly and annually to the parliament, and also publicly on the ARPANSA website. This ensures that there is absolute accountability and transparency about the radiation activities being undertaken by Commonwealth agencies and about the actions taken by the regulator.

Consistent with this government's commitments, the changes do not have any financial impact and nor do they increase any compliance burden for individuals, business or community organisations. The amendments simply update and improve the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.