Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

In responding to the amendment, I firstly would like to commend Senator Day for seizing the opportunity to encourage debate around this issue.

While the government welcomes a discussion around the broader opportunities that exist for a nuclear industry in Australia, it has been clear that any move to expand the nuclear industry in Australia would require bipartisan and broad community support. I can inform the senator that the government believes all energy options, including nuclear, should be part of any community discussion about Australia's future energy mix. The energy white paper 2015 states:

The Australian Government will consider the outcomes of the South Australian Royal Commission into its future involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle including the mining, enrichment, energy and storage phases for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

And I note the royal commission is due to report its findings in May 2016 and also note that South Australia is indeed Senator Day's home state.

The Australian government is also committed to monitoring international developments on nuclear energy and will continue to work with the states and territories on improving the regulation of nuclear industries. Improvements include responding to technical developments and the streamlining and removal of any unnecessary regulation. The Department of Industry and Science is reviewing options in this regard, and repealing section 10 would be premature in light of these existing processes and policy settings.

While consideration of lifting prohibitions may be relevant when setting the policy direction for Australia's energy future, such considerations should be made at the right time. In the case of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill 2015 before us, it is intended to update the legal framework governing the safety of existing facilities and the protection of workers, the public and the environment.

Consideration of section 10 of the act was outside the scope of the review of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. The review of the ARPANS Act was undertaken to improve the operation of the legislation and to update the regulatory scheme to better reflect international best practice.

The bill provides ARPANSA with a range of tools in order to best manage radiation risks and to monitor and enforce compliance with the legislation by existing Commonwealth entities. Repealing section 10 of the ARPANS Act in isolation would not result in a situation whereby the prohibited nuclear installations could then be constructed or operated in Australia. The ARPANS Act only applies to Commonwealth entities. Other legislation at both state and federal levels would need to be repealed and amended to enable the prohibited nuclear installations identified in section 10 to be constructed and operated in Australia. I note again that such an action would be premature in light of processes underway to consider options and opportunities in relation to the future of the Australian nuclear industry. As such, the government does not support the amendment but we look forward to further discussion of this issue.