Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers to questions today, particularly the responses from Senator Minchin to the questions that I asked him about this very important report, the Switkowski report. I am not too sure how many people have read it, but it is a fascinating report: Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—opportunities for Australia? There is a question mark at the end, and there are a lot of questions raised by it.

We would think, from what we are reading and hearing, that this report is providing the best option. But let me say a few things about the report. It starts off with a very important point. The first assertion is that Australia’s best option is clean coal. That is the most profound thing that is in the report, I have to say. Secondly, it says that nuclear will only be viable if fossil fuels begin to pay for their emissions. Senator Minchin this afternoon was not actually able to discuss that because he has not taken the opportunity to read the text around that argument in this report—and it is a very important part of the report. It suggests that a price of $15 to $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent would be necessary to make nuclear electricity competitive.

There are other problems that are identified quite clearly. First of all, the period for planning, building and commissioning Australia’s first nuclear power plant would be between 10 and 20 years. What happens next? We have a problem. The report acknowledges that Australia lacks expertise and skills in nuclear research. We on this side of the chamber have been talking for a long time about skills shortages. The report actually acknowledges this significant skills shortage. Probably about 6½ thousand skilled engineers and nuclear scientists are missing from the planet, not just from Australia. More are needed to enable this to happen.

There is no regulatory framework. The report identifies that very clearly. There is no regulatory framework for the industry, and it would be necessary to establish a single national regulator to cover all the aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, drawing heavily again on overseas expertise. We have existing Australian laws that ban the establishment of nuclear fuel cycle facilities from power plants to enrichment plants. That goes to the question that was asked today by Senator Carr about whether or not the minister would consider overriding state powers on that important issue.

They are just some of the problems that we have. But it was very clear from what I have read of the report that the critical issue on the table is climate change. The report underlines that very clearly. Global warming is real, despite the protestations from those who suggest that it is not an issue. There is a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we have the rejection of the electric car—that is not part of the solutions—and we have a very urgent need for the government on this issue, as with drought, not to go for quick-fix short-term solutions that create environmental disasters in the future.

The Switkowski report makes the best possible case for the nuclear industry—I will give it that—but it is a very overoptimistic case. I suggest that in many respects it is quite misleading. Not to be missed from all this—and I am sure Senator Crossin will pick it up—is the whole waste issue, which is trivialised in this report. Also not to be missed from all this is the high-handed approach of the parliamentary secretary for water, Mr Turnbull, linking nuclear reactors with the possibility of desalination plants to solve our water problems. Neither of those solutions really is in the best interests of the Australian community. Neither of those solutions is going to deliver any responses to the critical water issues that we are facing currently, not in 10 years time.