David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017, which broadens the function of the Lucas Heights nuclear facility to include scientific research, innovation and training. I had the pleasure of a tour of the facility a few months ago, which helped me to understand its capabilities.

What this bill does, in terms of allowing ANSTO to do more than it can at the moment, is not enough. We must go further, because Australia is a nation of Luddites when it comes to things nuclear and, like all other Luddites, we're destined to get poorer and poorer as a result. If the government were genuine about being agile, innovative and technology-agnostic and about easing the cost of living for Australians facing huge electricity bills—and even about reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions—we would regulate rather than ban nuclear power.

We hear a lot about renewable energy, whose share of global electricity generation was 0.6 per cent 40 years ago and is now 6.3 per cent. But nuclear power has grown by more than this. It was 3.3 per cent of global electricity generation 40 years ago and is now 10.6 per cent. This growth of nuclear power has occurred despite the handful of kneejerk reactions we saw after the 2011 disaster in Japan, where an earthquake and tsunami killed 20,000 people, while the resulting meltdown of an old and poorly-sited nuclear power plant killed no-one.

Nuclear power remains an unremarkable feature of electricity markets in numerous countries, including South Korea, Sweden and, particularly, France, where 75 per cent of electricity generation is nuclear. As the government's Finkel review admits, countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and China are now developing small, modular reactors to further expand their nuclear power. But this brief acknowledgement of nuclear is all that Finkel has to say on the matter. There are no recommendations on nuclear power, no inclusion of nuclear power in the cost comparisons between technologies and no inclusion of nuclear power in the comparisons on emissions intensity. It seems that Finkel was simply tasked with coming to the bizarre conclusion that fossil-fuel-based power generation is somehow more expensive now than in the past, and that we should have a carbon tax that isn't called a carbon tax and doesn't generate any revenue. It seems that Finkel stuck to his brief. What a shame he couldn't have been more agile.

If the government were genuine about being agile and innovative, we would exploit the huge business opportunity to store nuclear waste—not just our waste but the waste of the rest of the world. We already store waste at Lucas Heights, with no detriment and no hysteria, despite the fact that this is essentially a suburb of Sydney and that more than four million people live in the vicinity.

Australia is the most geologically-stable land mass on earth, and we also have a stable and secure system of government. By rejecting the option of securely storing the world's nuclear waste, we are missing an opportunity for higher incomes and increased tax collections.

The taxpayer is also taking a hit through our rejection of nuclear submarine technology. We are paying France $50 billion to gut their stealthy, long-range, nuclear-powered submarines so that noisy, range-reducing diesel engines can be fitted instead. This is absurd. Maintaining nuclear-powered submarines is not beyond a technologically advanced country like Australia. Our national defence deserves it, and our taxpayers deserve it.

Whether it's nuclear power, nuclear waste or nuclear-powered submarines, Australia is in a bad place that we need to get out of. A bit of agility and innovation is required.