Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Tomorrow the United Nations will be hosting a discussion on nuclear safety and security at the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General. In the UN jargon, this is a high-level meeting. The meeting has its genesis in the unfortunate events in Japan last year. In preparation for the meeting a system-wide study was undertaken on the implications of the Fukushima accident. A solid 43-page document was issued in relation to this on 16 August this year. As a result, participating countries have had over one month to study the document. Can I say as an aside that that is refreshing given that this government only provided a Senate committee with a few minutes in relation to Treasury modelling on carbon tax. I never thought that I would hear myself say, 'Look at the United Nations for due process and proper procedure,' but when it comes to that, with all its flaws, the United Nations clearly is way ahead of this Labor government.

In the document that was circulated, in plenty of time for tomorrow's discussion, I note a number of observations. First of all, amongst other things, the document acknowledges the contribution that safe and scientifically sound nuclear technologies make to the agriculture and food production industries. So the nuclear sector is vital to the world's food task. If we want to deal with action on poverty we need a sensible, balanced approach to nuclear power. Indeed, in paragraph 16 of the United Nations report of the Secretary-General, we are told:

Providing access to energy for the 2.4 billion people currently living in energy poverty is an important precondition for progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Then it goes on to say—and I want to stress this:

All—

I underline 'all'—

energy sources and technologies will be required to meet that enormous challenge. Nuclear power has been and will remain a significant contributor to meeting global energy needs.

Thus achieving the Millennium Development Goals in fighting poverty. Indeed, we could move on to paragraph 88 of the report where, in relation to climate change, it says:

… one of the benefits of nuclear power is its very low greenhouse gas emissions, which help reduce all risks associated with climate change.

So I would invite the Greens to take a more balanced approach, as indeed the United Nations have, in relation to the issues that the world confronts following the unfortunate events in Japan last year.

Interestingly, we have heard Senator Ludlam and others from the Greens condemn the nuclear industry, by saying it is a thing of the past and it is a dying industry. Indeed, Senator Ludlum said, 'Nuclear is a declining industry, it is a dying industry and there is no turning back,' and phrases of that nature. If you actually turn to the United Nations document that I have in front of me, you will see that paragraph 17 is very informative:

As of July 2011, some 440 nuclear power reactors were operating in 29 countries, with 65 new reactors under construction. Interest in nuclear power, although impacted by the accident at the Fukushima … nuclear power plant, remains high. Of the countries without nuclear power that before the accident had strongly indicated their intentions to proceed with nuclear power programmes, only a few have cancelled or revised their plans, but most have not.

That is the reality of the world situation. No matter how the Greens come into this debate and try to spin, that is the reality. Anything that relates to nuclear gets the Greens up in arms, gets them on the front foot and on the attack. So if we were to call the 'nuclear family' the 'natural family' I wonder whether the Greens would be somewhat more supportive of the more traditional family role model. But I digress.

Having taken that slight whack at the Australian Greens, I can indicate that the coalition does not have any opposition to the two documents that Senator Ludlam sought to have tabled. So, if the Greens were to renew their request through their next speaker, the coalition would not oppose that request.

We ask for a sensible debate in this country. We are willing to sell our uranium to other countries in the world but not use it ourselves for power production. Until we get bipartisanship support on that, I doubt it will happen in Australia. But it is the same attitude that the Labor Party takes to coal. We export our coal, without a tax, for other people to burn—that is morally okay—but we are not allowed to burn our own coal in Australia without putting a huge carbon tax on it, putting ourselves at a disadvantage. You really have to wonder about government policy on these matters. (Time expired)