Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Hansard source

I speak to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation report for 2008-09. In doing so, I note the leadership of Dr Ziggy Switkowski, who is the chairman of that organisation. The issue of nuclear energy and the nuclear debate will not go away, as was noted in an article in the Australian on 25 February by Keith Orchison. He said that nuclear power is an issue that will not go away in Australia’s climate change policy debate. Mr Rudd has a closed mind. He has said no, categorically. If he were genuine in his response to the climate change agenda, as he calls it, and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he would consider it as an option. It is desirous, as our leader Mr Abbott has said, that there be a bipartisan approach on an issue such as this, but clearly there is action and support for nuclear energy—Australia is a very significant uranium producer—and it is an obvious route, in my view, to greener pastures.

Australia stands alone among the 25 top world economies in excluding the use of nuclear energy, despite the government’s hypocritical willingness to export uranium, of which we have an estimated 40 per cent of the world’s supply, to assist in the production of nuclear energy around the world. We are happy to do that on the one hand but on the other we are categorically saying no to nuclear power in this country. Fifty-six countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors, and a further 220 reactors are used to power ships and submarines. There are 436 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, providing about 15 per cent of the world’s electricity as continuous reliable baseload power, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Some 16 countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three-quarters of its power from nuclear energy and the United States almost one-fifth. In recent weeks, President Obama made a speech indicating strong support by the US government for growing nuclear power as an energy source for that country. Towards the end of last year, the UK announced very significant developments. They are planning for about 10 nuclear power stations. So it is clearly on the agenda of the major industrialised countries around the world.

I note also in this article of 25 February in the Australian that ANSTO told the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy last year that, with national power demand rising by two per cent a year and 93 per cent of electricity currently coming from fossil fuels, the problem was so serious that all technologies should be under active consideration. I think they should be. The report also notes that total national annual demand today is 252,000 gigawatt hours and is projected by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to exceed 400,000 gigawatt hours in 2030.

It is heading our way. We need to have a long-term view—a 2020 vision. Leaving nuclear energy on the table to consider as an option is sensible. Obviously, it must be subject to appropriate safety and health conditions. My views were set out in an opinion piece in the Mercury towards the end of November last year. I think it should definitely be considered as an option. The Rudd government says it is serious about what it calls ‘climate change’ and greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is totally dismissive of considering this as a serious option for the future. That is hypocritical in the extreme. We have uranium as a resource and we are happy to export it overseas to all these other countries that use it for their purposes, but Australia stands alone amongst the 25 major developed countries of the world. I draw that to the attention of the Senate and of the public.