Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Effective legislation that will ensure clarity in interpretation is an important priority of the Howard government. The bill that we are debating this evening, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, clearly exemplifies this. By reducing the complexity of legislation, the Howard government is reducing the costs of compliance that are a burden on our economy whilst also reducing the potential for loopholes to be found.

This bill will ensure that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will have effective management of radioactive materials in Australia in a practical way. Managing energy will be of the highest importance to Australia if we are to remain a prosperous nation throughout the 21st century. This was highlighted by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Hon. Ian MacFarlane, on 16 October this year at the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, when he spoke on the importance of effective management of nuclear energy as being complementary to other sources of energy.

The minister has reinforced the fact that Australia is leading the world in many aspects of the international collaboration on greenhouse gas reduction, clean energy development and public-private partnerships to commercialise projects using low emission technology. In underscoring the need for Australia to use cleaner fuels, he brought to our attention that we cannot simply overlook the importance of using nuclear fuel. Cleaner fuels will become a higher priority for all governments as we come to grips with the higher demand for energy and the possibility of global warming. Therefore, it is essential to consider the role of all energy sources.

Earlier this year, I arranged for the government members’ industry and resources committee, which I chair, to be briefed comprehensively by experts who understand the next generation of processing plants capable of full cycle nuclear power, including waste disposal, costing as little as 5c a kilowatt hour. When this is compared with 3.5c an hour for coal, 4.5c for gas, 8c for wind and 12c for solar power, clearly the role of nuclear energy must be considered. With over 30 countries already taking advantage of clean nuclear power, it would leave Australia at a competitive disadvantage to overlook the possibility of integration of this source into our energy management.

I think that is a point that needs to be reinforced when we listen to what the opposition senators have been saying in this debate. Anyone would think that Australia was embarking on some new adventure by considering the possibilities of nuclear energy generation, when in fact we are one of the few developed countries that do not use nuclear energy. As I said, there are some 30 countries around the world already taking advantage of clean nuclear power and in fact renewing their commitment to that source of energy. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has outlined his scepticism toward carbon trading, as it so clearly places Australia at a competitive disadvantage. Imposing a carbon trading policy on Australian business would undoubtedly result in a commercial flight of investment and jobs. But, again, it needs to be considered.

Australia has more than 40 per cent of the world’s uranium supply, a resource we are currently selling to other nations for them to use as a source of energy. It would clearly be daft of us to give other nations a competitive advantage through using clean fuels derived from our natural resources of uranium and gas while we continue to sit back and do nothing, as the Labor opposition would seek to have us do. We must not fail—as those in opposition continue to do with regard to policy initiatives—to undertake important new initiatives and legislative changes with regard to nuclear energy. I commend the government strongly for being bold and confident enough to stimulate public debate on the future of nuclear energy in Australia.

It is time to consolidate a succinct policy of nuclear management under ANSTO. As it currently stands, ANSTO has the authority to prepare, manage and store those radioactive wastes associated with the organisation’s activities, unless specified by regulation. ANSTO, in the past year, had a majority of its publications deemed by the research performance assessment to be in the top 25 per cent internationally. It has also embraced corporate responsibility, reporting on the responses it has made to environmental, safety and social issues that affect staff, customers, the Australian community and key stakeholders. The bill we are considering would involve ANSTO being engaged as the pre-eminent nuclear science and research agency to manage additional radioactive materials that arise from beyond its own activities.

These three broad additional categories would allow ANSTO to, first:

Participate in the management of radioactive material and waste in the possession or under the control of any Commonwealth entity. This would include material designated to be stored at the proposed Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the Minister’s second reading speech indicates that ANSTO may be charged with operating that facility.

Secondly:

Where requested by a Commonwealth, State or Territory law enforcement or emergency response agency, deal with radioactive material and waste arising from a relevant incident, including a terrorist or criminal act.

And, thirdly:

Dealing with intermediate level waste (originating from spent nuclear fuel from ANSTO’s nuclear reactors) that is returned to Australia from overseas reprocessing facilities for storage and/or disposal.

Under the contractual arrangements that ANSTO has with the reprocessing plants in Scotland and France, Australian spent fuel may be combined with spent nuclear fuel from other sources and processed in bulk campaigns. Thus, technically, returned waste is not exclusively from ANSTO’s reactors, although the exact quantity would equate to that created by ANSTO.

This piece of legislation is very important for the future of Australia and for our role in all of the important future energy markets. The opposition have expressed scepticism in their arguments towards this legislation, arguing that it lacks public support, in particular from Northern Territorians who may be affected by a local federal processing and storage site. However, it needs to be said that the opposition is clutching at straw man arguments in relation to this bill. This legislation is important to ensure that all responsibility for the management of radioactive waste comes under ANSTO. It is for the benefit, not the detriment, of those concerned about radioactive waste that this be done. By putting ANSTO’s authority over the management of radioactive waste in Australia beyond doubt, we eliminate the duplication of any legal challenges to issues related to the management of radioactive waste. This is the clarity that is required for good legislation in the 21st century.

The government has suggested, following the tabling of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, that storage of radioactive materials is likely to be in the Northern Territory. We need look no further than the arguments put forward by my Western Australian Senate colleague Senator Lightfoot in his speech in the second reading debate on that bill to understand that this is most appropriate. He clearly articulated that geological stability is the reason why the storage of radioactive waste should be in the Northern Territory. He explained that the rock under the Australian outback is the oldest in the world and that the stability this provides, free from any subterranean water flows, is the safest place in the world for the storage of radioactive waste. However, this is not an issue relevant to the bill before us, despite the arguments we have heard one after the other from opposition senators talking about the storage of radioactive waste in the Northern Territory. It is not the subject and it is not an issue in relation to this bill. There may be some arguments relevant to that issue but they are relevant to the waste management act and not the legislation we are debating tonight.

This bill is concerned with the management of radioactive material in Australia, not the location of its storage, so the contrived straw man arguments of the Labor opposition show how bereft they are of any policy with regard to the management of Australia’s resources in the international energy market. Continuing their traditional policy laziness that we have seen over the last decade, they fall back on scaremongering or points unrelated to the bill we are debating.

In the light of recent environmental and scientific developments, there needs to be a considered debate on nuclear energy in Australia. Many respected environmentalists have changed their opinion towards nuclear energy as it is clean, increasingly viable and complements the use of renewable energy resources. Just last week Dr Ziggy Switkowski released his landmark report that was initiated by the federal government on the possible future of the nuclear energy industry in Australia. He concluded that 25 nuclear reactors could produce a third of this country’s electricity by the year 2050.

The Prime Minister set up the inquiry entitled ‘Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy—Opportunities for Australia?’—the Switkowski inquiry—in June of this year to find out if a nuclear energy industry was viable in Australia and whether nuclear power would be a clean alternative to coal-fired power generation. The Switkowski report found that Australia, with about 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, could have a viable nuclear enrichment and power industry within 15 years as the cost of cleaner coal and gas power increases. The report found that Australia could have about 25 nuclear reactors, which, as I said, could supply about a third of our electricity by 2050, drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which currently contribute to global warming. Enrichment would also add billions of dollars to the value of uranium exports.

The report in its conclusion says that using nuclear energy to generate electricity involves fewer health and safety impacts than current technologies like coal, other fuel based generation and hydropower, taking into account both emissions during normal operation and the impact of accidents. In considering safety issues, the report notes that Australia is already an integral part of the long established international system for reviewing the scientific literature on radiation and its biological effects and for developing and issuing guidelines in achieving ever safer operation. Further, our health and safety requirements reflect best international practice.

It is a fact that nuclear power and renewable energy sources will become competitive in Australia in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised. We have every reason to be confident of Australia’s health and safety systems in an expanded uranium mining industry and the nuclear fuel cycle. In that context, I believe that nuclear energy would be an effective contributor to Australia’s energy economy much in the same way that it has been for other comparable nations.

Sadly, the Labor opposition will have none of this—no rational debate for them, just cynical opportunistic scaremongering and the ‘not in my backyard’ or NIMBY approach, writ large. We only need to look at the pathetically populist response of the state Labor premiers to the Switkowski report. Next time I hear them bleating about the need to account for the costs of greenhouse emissions, forgive me if I treat them with a measure of disdain. Clearly, they refuse to give rational consideration to an energy source which is made competitive by such accounting and also has the capacity to meet baseload energy requirements in Australia while not producing greenhouse gas.

The Prime Minister has encouraged public debate on the issue—and he is to be commended for so doing—so that we can explore in a rational way the potential benefits and ramifications of the use of nuclear energy, and all we get from the Labor opposition, as I say, is this cynical, opportunistic scaremongering in response.

The purpose of the bill is reinforced by the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. They argued:

It is prudent and rational that the scope of ANSTO’s legislated functions be broadened so other Common wealth agencies or law enforcement agencies and Commonwealth, State or Territory emergency or disaster agencies can access its considerable expertise in handling radioactive materials and waste.

This comment reflects the intention of the bill. Clear and effective legislation like this bill will see Australia continue to prosper in the future.

I note that concerns were also expressed by the Democrats, in the person of Senator Allison, that under the bill Australia may become a waste dump for foreign radioactive waste. That concern is unfounded. It is clearly stated that intermediate waste received from overseas will be accepted under this bill only if it equates to ANSTO spent fuel. This demonstrates that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill is a sensible piece of legislation. It does not stand to make the Northern Territory a radioactive waste dump for foreign waste. It follows that the recommendations made by industry professionals that we provide ANSTO with the legislative power to fulfil their role effectively for all Australians warrant support.

Whether in times of emergency or otherwise, it is best to ensure that our pre-eminent nuclear science and research agency is capable of dealing with the management of nuclear material right across Australia. Although outside the scope of this bill, I do believe it remains the case that the Northern Territory is the safest location to store Australian radioactive material. It may in fact be the safest location for the storage of radioactive material in the world, as argued by Senator Lightfoot. But, again, that is not relevant to this legislation.

We need to manage our energy resources effectively, not only from an economic perspective but also, as this legislation will ensure, from a health and safety perspective. This bill will empower ANSTO, the most qualified organisation for the job, to manage radioactive waste in Australia in the safest possible way. To argue about unrelated issues, as we have heard from the Labor opposition, really misses the point of the legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate.