David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

‘We can use smoke and mirrors. We can fudge it, we can duck and weave and we can pretend we know what we are talking about.’ But, at the end of the day, whether you have done any hard yards or developed any policy catches up with you. It caught up with the opposition on the GST. The sky was going to fall with the GST; the world would be absolutely destroyed by the GST. But look at the GST now: oh dear, it’s working beautifully! Work Choices was going to mean massive job cuts. We were told that everybody would be without a job when Work Choices came about. The federal opposition says, ‘We haven’t done any policy on industrial relations, but let’s run a scare campaign on Work Choices.’ It is untrue. Work Choices is working beautifully: 200,000 new jobs since March and the lowest recorded unemployment figures since data has been kept.

When there is an issue in the community and you have not done the hard yards the opposition says: ‘What we’ll do is run a scare campaign, particularly when our party is so divided on issues like uranium mining, particularly when if we are going to clutch power in the coming federal election we have to do it with Green preferences. So we’ve got to run a smoke-and-mirrors argument about nuclear reactors in backyards so that nobody really asks the question about what Labor’s policy is 10 or 20 years into the future with respect to energy generation.’ The opposition says: ‘We don’t want to ask that question because all we want to talk about is whether you are going to get a nuclear reactor in your backyard. Because that is what the Greens are saying, and we want to say what they’re saying so that we’ll get their preferences and no-one will really know what is going on and we can fudge it and we can take power because we can slide through under the door.’

I want to tell you what Dr Flannery said, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson. In launching his book We are the Weather Makers: The Story of Global Warming Dr Flannery said that Australia needs to have the debate on nuclear energy because of its role as a large uranium exporter. Let us not forget that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Premier of South Australia are keen to open up more uranium mines, and Dr Flannery, the climate change champion, is saying that it is the debate we have to have. But the Labor Party contribution to the debate is: where is the nuclear reactor going to go? In whose backyard? Adjacent to whose back wall? What a fantastic contribution to the national interest—a scare campaign! After 11 years in hibernation they suddenly stir and bring forward a magnificent scare campaign.

Who can forget the words and the approach of Labor’s illustrious former Prime Minister of eight or nine years, Bob Hawke, when at the same launch he told the University of Oxford Alumni dinner that we could revolutionise Australia’s economy by taking the world’s nuclear waste. He said Australia had ‘the geologically safest places in the world for the storage of nuclear waste’. This is the Labor man of the century, the Labor man who led them to government for the longest time ever. That is what he is saying. He has a policy; even retired as he is he has a policy. He still has much more going for him than the current opposition ever has.

The point is that the Howard government stands for an informed public discussion on nuclear energy, so that all of the facts can be known and so that there can be a removal of the emotive, nonsensical, political chicanery type arguments that are being run by the federal opposition. I have told you why they oppose having this argument. It is because of what will happen when Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett get to the national congress. Mr Garrett is a man of fluid principle, no hard and fast principle—things change. I say that when I look at his attitude to US bases. I just know that he will be on both sides of the street with respect to uranium mining. Let’s have a look at what we are offering the Australian community: we are offering an informed debate, driven by facts not by emotion, hysteria and cheap, come-out-of-hibernation scare campaign politics.

Speculation on where nuclear reactors would be located—and this is the big contribution of the federal opposition—is so premature as to be laughable, simply designed to stampede public opinion away from the debate that we think and Dr Flannery thinks we should have. Given there is no decision to add nuclear power to Australia’s energy mix, it is a classic case of the old Labor scare campaign. For a start, Commonwealth and state legislation prohibits the establishment of nuclear power stations in Australia. There is nobody who would consider investing in nuclear power until there was solid bipartisan consensus in support of nuclear power. I say that again for the benefit of senators opposite: there is no-one who would invest in nuclear power stations until there is solid bipartisan support for nuclear power in Australia.

The prospect of nuclear energy is a discussion that any responsible, sensible parliamentary member has to have in addressing the future energy needs of the country in the context of its environment. It is responsible to have the discussion, not to jump up to the microphone and ask: ‘Where’s the nuclear reactor going to go? Whose backyard is going to get it?’ What a wonderful contribution! It is an insult to this parliament and it is an insult to the role of the opposition.

There have been three recent reports on the use of nuclear in Australia’s future energy mix. The government’s energy policy, as we on this side all know, has remained in line with the 2004 energy white paper. We are discussing this issue, looking at those reports and working through the facts to engage the community as to the viable options into the future. We have Mr Switkowski’s report which was handed down on 29 December of last year. Mr Switkowski chaired the Prime Minister’s task force. We also have the uranium industry framework report, which was released on 13 November 2006. This report included 20 recommendations to address impediments to the capitalisation and opportunities to develop Australia’s uranium industry. The UIF report fed into the development of the review of the Prime Minister’s task force, and some of the review’s findings, particularly those with respect to current skill shortages, are similar to the recommendations in the UIF report. The third report is from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. The committee’s inquiry centred on a case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources. The terms of reference for the case study, initiated in March 2005, asked the committee to inquire into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium reserves.

I want to deal with those three reports in a moment, but let us just pause to look at the context in which we are talking here. There are over 400 nuclear reactors around the world. The opposition is running around and saying, ‘Whose backyard is going to get one?’ I have to tell you that there are an awful lot of backyards in the world that have one, and they are in some pretty interesting places.

For those of you who do not know, Argentina has six. Austria has one. Bangladesh has one. Brazil has one. Canada has 24. Colombia has one. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has a reactor. Cuba did have one, but it is no longer in operation. The Czech Republic has two. Egypt has two. Estonia has one. France has 59. Greece has one. Hungary has three. India has seven, by my count. Indonesia, our nearest neighbour, has three. Israel has two. Italy has two. Jamaica has a SLOWPOKE-2 reactor in Kingston. Japan has 17 reactors. Kazakhstan has three. Latvia has one. Libya has one. Lithuania has one. Malaysia has one. Mexico has three. Morocco has one. The Netherlands have two. Norway has two. The Philippines has one. Peru has two. Portugal has one. Poland has two. Puerto Rico has two. Serbia has two. Slovenia has one. Spain has one. South Africa has one. South Korea has three. Syria has one. Who would believe that Syria has a nuclear reactor? It is a miniature neutron source reactor, but they have one. Sweden has six. Switzerland has two. Taiwan has one. Thailand has two. Turkey has three. Ukraine has two. The United Kingdom has 20. The United States has 139, of which some 60 have been shut down. So shutting them down obviously is not too much of a problem when you can shut down that many. Uruguay has one. Venezuela has one and, lo and behold, Vietnam has one.

Isn’t it amazing that, with 440 nuclear reactors already out there, the opposition is running around and saying, ‘Who’s going to have one in their backyard?’ Well, a hell of a lot of people do have them in their backyards and there is not one, single problem with them. But that does not detract from having a good scare campaign. When you have been asleep for 11 years and you suddenly come to, you would think: ‘Crikey! We’ve got a new leader and the polls are looking on the up. We’d better do something to make it look as though we are awake and have some policy.’ Of course all of us on this side know that the opposition has done nothing for 11 years and the public will find out about it.

The House of Representatives committee focused on the global demand for Australia’s uranium resources. I want to talk about uranium resources because this issue is crucial. The Labor Party want us to break away from their crazy three-mines policy, where you have some uranium that is evil and some uranium that is okay. It is interesting to try to work out which is evil and which is okay, but the Labor Party have been doing amazing things.

The Labor Party, in wanting to expand uranium mining, as the government does, has to come to terms with the fact that we are in the game of nuclear energy, because we are providing the resources for the 440 power stations and reactors that I have just adverted to. We are doing it because we are the biggest source of uranium in the world—we have more reserves. The members of the House of Representatives committee considered another six issues, including consultation and approval processes with traditional owners, health risks to workers and the public from exposure to radiation, and the adequacy of regulation of uranium mining by the Commonwealth. Many of the issues the inquiry examined were also independently addressed in the report of the uranium industry framework and the Prime Minister’s task force.

The committee was highly critical of existing state government restrictions on uranium exploration and mining, which it described as being—and this was a committee comprised of government and non-government members—‘illogical, inconsistent and anti-competitive’. The committee concluded that increased production from Australia’s uranium industry could make a substantial contribution to meeting global demand for energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s remember the context of what we are discussing—that it would contribute to meeting global energy demands while reducing greenhouse gas emissions—and the opposition’s contribution to that, which is: ‘We don’t want to talk about it. We’ve been asleep for 11 years and we’re not going to talk about it, because we are divided and it is not in our political best interests.’

The report of the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce, the UMPNER report—that is, Mr Switkowski’s report—was released by the Prime Minister on 29 December, as I have said. The key findings were that there is support for the expansion of Australia’s mining and export of uranium as identified through the task force consultations, that regulation of uranium mining should be rationalised and that a single national regulator should be established to cover radiation safety, nuclear safety, security safeguards and related impacts on the environment for all nuclear fuel cycle activities.

The report also finds that skills shortages, most notably radiation safety officers and geologists with uranium experience, and restrictive policies—that is, regulation, land access and transport—are the major constraints to the expansion of Australia’s uranium industry. The report suggests that Australia’s exports of uranium oxide of $573 million in 2005 could be transformed into a further $1.8 billion—more than tripled—after conversion enrichment and fuel fabrication, but notes there would be significant challenges in obtaining access to the relevant technology and funds for investment. The report suggests that there is an opportunity of taking our exports from about $500 million to about $1.8 billion. Of course, the Labor Party’s contribution to the debate is, ‘Let’s not talk about it.’

The final report of Mr Switkowski’s review provides a comprehensive analysis of the facts surrounding nuclear energy, finding it to be clean, safe and potentially able to make a significant contribution to lowering Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. What could be more important to the national interest? It is clean, safe and with potential to make significant contributions to lowering Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions—it does not get more important. It is what we want to hear. But the really important question is: ‘Where is the reactor going to go? Is it your backyard or my backyard?’ That is the opposition’s contribution to this. It is an absolute disgrace.

The review anticipates that a reactor could be operating in 2016 or, more likely, 2020. That is in perfect circumstances where the price of electricity is high and where there are problems justifying the per kilowatt hour price, which, as I will explain in a moment, is much higher than the current price of coal or gas. Mr Switkowski’s review received over 230 public submissions from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

Australia has an abundance of low-cost coal and gas—fuels producing 90 per cent of our electricity and 34 per cent of our greenhouse gases. That is the problem. We are saying, ‘Let’s look at a solution’ and the opposition’s contribution is to say, ‘No!’ We have the lowest electricity costs in the OECD. Obviously that is of substantial economic benefit to us and we must be careful to protect it. When we look at these issues we must do so in a responsible way.

I see that I am running out of time, so I will finish by saying that, when the government suggests we have a debate, it is no answer to worry about your political hide, to worry about how it is going to look when you are divided on uranium mining or to avoid the hard questions when you really need to show some leadership and responsibility. You need to take on the hard issues and endeavour to come up with the best answer for Australia’s future energy needs in the national interest.