David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. Australia is in the process of acquiring a fleet of eight nuclear powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement. As part of this agreement, Australia will be responsible for the management of spent fuel from the submarine reactors. Deputy Prime Minister, will this nuclear waste be stored in Australia? If so, where?

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. As we announced in March of last year when we announced the optimal pathway for acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine capability in this country, we made clear that we would be responsible for the disposal of the nuclear waste, as I referred to in the answer to the last question that was asked by the shadow minister for Defence. We've also made clear that we will be announcing in the coming months a process by which the site will be established for the disposal of the nuclear waste.

The point to be made here, as I said in the answer to the previous question, is that the first nuclear reactor which will need to be disposed of will be due for disposal in the early 2050s. In answer to the question of spent fuel rods, this is a sealed nuclear reactor, and so there are no spent fuel rods. It does not need to be refuelled. The first time we will need to be disposing of high-level nuclear waste will be in the early 2050s. So, yes, we do have time to go through a process of determining where that site will occur. The one point we have made, which we made again in March last year, was that it will occur on Defence land.

Again, what we have is a set of questions which are trying to draw an equivalence between how we operate eight nuclear reactors in respect of eight single machines, and how those opposite might seek to establish a civil nuclear industry with power stations which are intended to power cities. It is like comparing a car engine with a coal-fired power station because they both burn hydrocarbons. That is the silliness of the comparison that they are engaging in. The reason that so many differences apply here is best illuminated by the question of nuclear waste, because the establishment of power stations in any kind of timeframe—and which would have any dint on getting to net zero emissions by 2050—would see tonnes of high-level nuclear waste needing to be disposed of in the 2030s and the 2040s. I repeat, it will be in the early 2050s that we will need to dispose of the first nuclear reactor under AUKUS. This is precisely why those opposite have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. What they need to be telling the Australian people is how much it will cost, when it's coming and how much power it will produce. In the absence of answering those questions, all they have for the Australian people is a lemon.