Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If it were so safe, you would think that anyone who lived in any state, or any state government, would agree to it. They are not convinced—hence the federal government wants to override one territory government to ensure storage. It is not safe. The Australian people are not convinced of its safety. However, as I say, the EM for the bill says that it will allow ANSTO to ‘condition, manage and store radioactive material other than that which may arise directly from ANSTO’s activities’.

As I said, this bill allows us to examine the many issues related to nuclear power generation. We in this place and in the Australian community are now repeatedly being told by the leaders of the federal Liberal Party and the nuclear industry that nuclear power is the way of the future. They claim that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, that nuclear power solves our greenhouse gas problems, that nuclear power is cheap and safe and that we must embrace it because otherwise we are heading for economic and environmental disaster.

Currently there are 441 nuclear reactors worldwide. There are plans for 56 new reactors to be built. That of course is without those proposed in the government commissioned report—the 25 extra. China is building three new reactors each year, but that is not good enough for this government; they have a report stating they want 25. Just the other day in Sydney the director of the World Nuclear Association told a conference that we would need to build an additional 8,800 reactors to prevent an environmental catastrophe.

The Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the United States and our own Prime Minister have all embraced the idea that we need to build new reactors as a means of dealing with climate change, environmental challenges and the increased demand for electricity. In this country, the government have tried to soften us up. They have tried to soften us up with stories in the print media, often contributed by politicians or nuclear industry insiders, and stories on 60 Minutes telling us that nuclear power is now the answer. Then of course the Prime Minister set up his own expert advisory panel to report on this issue—the report that we got last week.

I have seen and read many of the contributions in this debate, both in this chamber and the other place. I have heard the arguments about greenhouse gas emissions, about the role of nuclear medicine and about the safety, reliability and economics of nuclear power. However, I keep coming back to one simply statement. That statement was not made by a world leader, a scientist or even an environmentalist. It was made by a person who in fact has the potential to develop into any one of those things. That person is a 14-year-old girl, a year 9 student, who, after listening to a robust forum attended by industry and environmental representatives conducted in the northern suburbs of Perth earlier this year—in fact, in my office—came up to me and said, ‘They don’t know how to get rid of the waste properly, and there are other ways to get power.’ That of course echoes the concerns of millions of people worldwide.

Recently, petitions have been circulated in country towns in Western Australia about nuclear waste dumps. I have presented many of those petitions in this place. To say that I was overwhelmed by the response would be an understatement. People living in rural and regional Western Australia do not want a nuclear waste dump—not now, not ever. And they are very lucky: because they live in a state and not a territory, this government cannot override their wishes. Petitions on nuclear power have also been presented in this place from residents of Perth. Two more local government authorities have recently passed motions to make themselves nuclear free: the City of Joondalup, which has a mayor who is a member of the Liberal Party; and the City of Sterling, which also has a mayor who is a member of the Liberal Party. These petitions and actions at a local level have been driven by the Australian people’s realisation that they were being softened up for a dramatic change in national direction on nuclear power.

Let us just consider some of the more important statements in the nuclear power debate. The minister for industry claims that the construction of a nuclear power reactor in this country could commence within the next 10 years. Information available suggests that from the start of construction to commissioning takes five years. So, even if we started right now, we would see no power generated by nuclear power in this country until perhaps the year 2021. It is difficult to see how undertaking a project that will not yield any power for 15 years or so is the answer to climate change. Surely we could be using technology for renewable energy, such as wind or solar, that will not take us 15 years to implement. Much of that technology is already available and is proven to work. Look at Denmark: Denmark will produce over 50 per cent of its power from wind energy alone by the year 2030. Surely we could produce a significant percentage of power in this country from wind energy within the 15 years it would take to commission a nuclear power plant.

We are told by experts that to make nuclear power viable in Australia we would have to have approximately five or six nuclear power stations, ideally on coastal sites and within 100 kilometres of major cities. Indeed, the government-commissioned report recommends 25 such sites. They have to be built with reliable sources of water for cooling and power generation. Given the experts are now saying that we are facing a serious shortfall of water in this country, the concept that we should be using scarce water to generate power is more than slightly ridiculous.

Take the situation in France, which is held up as the pinup nation as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, so much so that even Senator Scullion referred to it. France gets 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power generation. Last summer when France experienced a severe heatwave it had to buy electricity on the European spot market. The reason France had to do this was because water supplies at several reactor sites had reached a critical level and plants had to be shut down.

Of course when this proposition is put to industry advocates they immediately say that nuclear power can drive desalination plants to supply the water that they need. That makes it easier to understand why they want to position them on coastal sites. I understand that the best possible pricing for the construction of a nuclear reactor able to supply power would be in the vicinity of $2 billion to $3 billion. So to put five or six in this country is going to cost us somewhere in the vicinity of $10 billion to $15 billion. Imagine what 25 would cost. So Australia is looking at an enormous inflow of specialised equipment imports over the coming 10 to 15 years. Who is going to pay for that? We know that in the United States between 1947 and 1999 there were direct subsidies of some $115 billion to the nuclear power industry with indirect subsidies of an additional $145 billion. Will the nuclear power industry advocated for in this country be based purely on a commercial basis or will the taxpayers have to contribute?

Next let us turn to the supplies of uranium. Currently some 20 countries around the world have uranium deposits. Two-thirds of the total world production comes from just 10 mines. Australia currently produces about 22 per cent of world supply. Australia is claimed to have about 40 per cent of world reserves of uranium. Prices for uranium have risen enormously over the last decade. Estimates based on planned reactors suggest that the worldwide supply of uranium has to double to meet the demand anticipated. Consider this: if the present global output of electricity were obtained entirely from nuclear reactors as efficiently as best practice allowed, the uranium in all the known rich ore bodies in the world would keep them going for just nine years. So nuclear power using uranium is not the long-term answer for global electricity generation or for our environment. It is passing strange, to say the least, that when we are now talking about the issues around peak oil we should be considering an industry in Australia that would see uranium reserves depleted so quickly. Now, when the government’s polling must be telling them that the issue of climate change is starting to take hold in the electorate, they resort to the nuclear option.

I note that Senator Heffernan said the other day that the rainfall in this country had changed and we should be encouraging farmers to move to where the rain is. I would like to suggest another option. Why are we not encouraging our farmers, especially those on lands that are still in the grip of a long-term drought, to consider farming renewable energy? There is no need to suggest that they move north. How about a suggestion to farm something else: farm the electricity producing power of wind or that of the sun.

Then there is the issue that Senator Scullion was talking about, the issue of waste. The people of South Australia rejected the Commonwealth’s attempt to place a nuclear waste facility in their state. The government also knew that the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia and the people of my home state also did not want a nuclear waste dump. The Commonwealth therefore places the waste facility in the Northern Territory where they can override the wishes of the local population. That is because the government of the Northern Territory, as I say, cannot prevent the facility being located there. That is the only reason for the choice of site.

I am always amazed that the issue of a nuclear waste dump is presented as a safe proposition, that there are going to be adequate safety provisions and security and that there is no risk to the community or the environment. However, there are no proposals to store this material in populous states or in major cities, although apparently Senator Scullion is happy to have one in his backyard. No, even with all their assurances and guarantees, they are storing it in a remote area of the Northern Territory. I have seen that even some government backbenchers are concerned.

Not so long ago the member for Tangney, Dr Jensen, said that he was quite prepared for a nuclear reactor to be built in his electorate. In the West Australian on 25 May 2005 Dr Jensen said that he would have no problem with a nuclear reactor being built in Tangney so long as it was a fourth-generation reactor. It seems fair enough. Dr Jensen is one of the advocates in that other place for a nuclear power industry and it seems that case is strengthened by his preparedness to have one in his own electorate.

Fast forward to the 10 October 2006 edition of the West Australian, which reported that Dr Jensen had pledged to give up his house at Halls Head in the electorate of Brand or perhaps Forrest—because Halls Head is in both electorates—and move to his electorate of Tangney. We have not heard an update from Dr Jensen as to whether he is still prepared to have a nuclear reactor in his electorate now that he is proposing to live there.

The electorate that I represent is all of Western Australia, as we know, and I do not want a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste facility in my electorate. A fairly straightforward choice faces the people of Western Australia at the election next year. Vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party and you are voting for a nuclear power industry—a vote for yesterday’s power generation answer. Vote for the waste and we will have to manage it not for one or two years, not even for one or two centuries, but one or two thousand centuries. This is not a problem for our grandchildren or even our great-grandchildren. This is about a waste management issue for hundreds of thousands of years. We will not address the issues of climate change, of power supply or of greenhouse gases by going down the nuclear reactor path. The future for this country and for the rest of the world is to invest in renewable sources of energy.

Vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party and you vote for nuclear reactors in this country that, at best, will not deliver any power for at least 15 years, even on the admission of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in question time last month, when he said:

Under this government, wind energy capacity has increased in Australia by 7,000 per cent—from 10 megawatts in 2000 to 700 megawatts in 2005. Solar energy has also grown, with the number of solar hot-water systems ... doubling since 2000-01 and extra capacity in solar photovoltaic also being installed.

So why would they not continue down the path of renewable energy instead of this ridiculous attempt to jump onto the nuclear power bandwagon, whose time has well and truly passed?

If the wind energy capacity in this country continues to develop as it has over the first years of the 21st century without the interference of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage then we will end up with a nuclear industry that will not be required. A vote for the Labor Party at the next election will be a vote for an investment in renewable energy. A vote for Labor will be about meeting the challenge of climate change without looking backwards to a solution that is completely unsatisfactory.