Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr and Stephens today relating to nuclear energy and climate change.

Today the Minister for the Environment and Heritage had the opportunity to rule out the use of the corporations powers to override state and territory governments on the question of the location of nuclear reactors in Australia. He failed to meet that challenge. This is the second occasion on which the minister has failed to meet that challenge. On 22 November, repeated questions were put to the minister by members of the press with regard to his attitude concerning the government’s use of the Constitution’s corporation powers to override the states in the building of nuclear power plants within their boundaries. What he said was that the government would do all it needed to do to secure the energy future.

The government has received the report from its hand-picked committee, and the Switkowski report has reignited the issue of nuclear power in Australia. That report, amongst other things, has suggested that there could be 25 nuclear power plants in Australia by 2050. That is just on the east coast of Australia. It is claimed that these 25 nuclear power plants could provide a third of Australia’s electricity and reduce environmentally damaging emissions by some 18 per cent.

Immediately a debate has arisen within Australia about the way in which the government would select the sites for these 25 nuclear power plants. We have seen that the government is deeply confused as to the direction it should take on nuclear power. On the one hand we have Minister Campbell suggesting that the government will use whatever power is available to it to impose these sites, these new power stations, on the states and territories—25 nuclear power plants on the east coast of Australia. On the other hand, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Mr Ian Macfarlane, speaking from India on 24 November, said he could not see a situation where the government would consider using the corporations power to force power stations on a state. In another example, the Minister for Finance and Administration maintains his position that nuclear power will not be economically viable in Australia for 100 years. We have the minister for industry saying that planning could begin in 10 years. We have the minister for finance, who has claimed his own pre-eminent expertise, saying that nuclear power will not be viable in Australia for 100 years.

A report has been produced for the government on the costings of such a proposal, based on some very rubbery figures which have been the subject of considerable criticism. The report, by Mr Switkowski, relies on a study by the Electric Power Research Institute, which has sought to assert that nuclear power’s pricing in the future can be compared with the pricing of solar and wind energy today. It suggests that the future price for nuclear power of between $40 and $65 per megawatt hour could be compared with the 2006 price for wind, thermal biomass and solar photovoltaics of between $50 and $120 per megawatt hour.

The whole approach that the government has been maintaining has been based on a pea-and-thimble trick. There is quite clearly established now within this government a deep policy confusion—and paralysis as a result—on the whole issue of climate change. The Howard government has been both for and against, simultaneously, the link between greenhouse gas and climate change. It has been the ultimate purveyor of climate change scepticism. The Howard government has been both for and against the Kyoto protocol. It has been at best ambivalent. It has sought on the one hand to say that the concerns are academic but on the other hand to maintain that it is going to provide leadership for some new hypothetical proposal in the future. (Time expired)

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, in his diluted effort this afternoon, has tried to point the government out as not being aware of where it is going with nuclear power. I find that ludicrous, given that there is no policy on nuclear power on the other side. Some on the other side say that we should mine uranium. Some say that we should not. Over the last two decades there has been a three-mine policy, which has effectively been a two-mine policy, and the only country it has benefited has been Canada. It did not stop the production of U308. It did not stop the production of plutonium. It stopped production only in Australia, where we lost billions of dollars because of that silly policy.

I will get on to the business of nuclear power in Australia, in the very short time that is available to me. Australia is blessed with 40 per cent or thereabouts of mineable—that is, at a profit—uranium. Australia is blessed with having not just uranium, with 40 per cent of the world’s known uranium, but also some of the oldest rock types in the world. We have in Australia what are called in geology the Archaean rock types, the penultimate ones being the protozoic rock types. We are also blessed in that the Archaean rock type that we have here is so old that it is geologically stable. As well, it is so fine and compacted that significant amounts of these areas—which compose a third of Australian rock, both subsurface and surface—do not have transportable water in them.

It is essential, if we are going to have nuclear power in Australia—and I am an advocate of nuclear power—that we have a waste repository system well and truly planned, like the Americans have at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If you have a repository then the uranium atom can move very quickly, at about the same pace as HO moves, through rocks. That is very important. I want to come back to that in a moment. So the hydrography and the geology are very important. We know that a repository is absolutely and totally necessary.

I have been to several nuclear power stations around the world. I have not just visited them and had a look in the office; I have had a look down in the reactors in Taiwan; in Argentina, at San Carlos de Bariloche; in the United Kingdom; and in the United States. I will take one nuclear powerhouse in the United States as an example. Calvert Cliffs, in Maryland, is built on the edge of Chesapeake Bay, which is arguably one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the United States. Calvert Cliffs has 2,000 megawatts of power in it. It produces many more megawatts per year. It draws 1.2 million gallons of seawater from the bottom of Chesapeake Bay, circulates it around the nuclear reactor and returns that water to the top, where it is four degrees warmer, without any damage to the environment there whatsoever. Chesapeake Bay is near the capital of the United States of America. It is near DC, the District of Columbia. It is near a population that probably equates to the whole population of Australia—nearly 20 million people.

Calvert Cliffs has 2,000 megawatts. We are unlikely to ever build a power station in Australia with 2,000 megawatts. But that power station produces electricity into the Baltimore gas and electricity grid at a cost of about US4c a kilowatt hour. It produces electricity wholesale. If that were not happening and they were relying on coal or other fossil fuel, there would be hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO being emitted from that one power station alone. Remember that the US derives 16 per cent of its power from nuclear.

For the other side to argue that we can have wind power, solar power, hydro power, hot rock power or conjure up power from somewhere else—I do not know where—that is the pea-and-thimble trick. Of course we cannot. The wind does not blow all the time. The sun does not shine all the time. The water does not run all the time. These renewables are important in the scheme of things. It is very important to have these types of renewables, but if we want industry to continue in Australia, if we want our kids to have jobs, then nuclear power is the way to go. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers to questions today, particularly the responses from Senator Minchin to the questions that I asked him about this very important report, the Switkowski report. I am not too sure how many people have read it, but it is a fascinating report: Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—opportunities for Australia? There is a question mark at the end, and there are a lot of questions raised by it.

We would think, from what we are reading and hearing, that this report is providing the best option. But let me say a few things about the report. It starts off with a very important point. The first assertion is that Australia’s best option is clean coal. That is the most profound thing that is in the report, I have to say. Secondly, it says that nuclear will only be viable if fossil fuels begin to pay for their emissions. Senator Minchin this afternoon was not actually able to discuss that because he has not taken the opportunity to read the text around that argument in this report—and it is a very important part of the report. It suggests that a price of $15 to $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent would be necessary to make nuclear electricity competitive.

There are other problems that are identified quite clearly. First of all, the period for planning, building and commissioning Australia’s first nuclear power plant would be between 10 and 20 years. What happens next? We have a problem. The report acknowledges that Australia lacks expertise and skills in nuclear research. We on this side of the chamber have been talking for a long time about skills shortages. The report actually acknowledges this significant skills shortage. Probably about 6½ thousand skilled engineers and nuclear scientists are missing from the planet, not just from Australia. More are needed to enable this to happen.

There is no regulatory framework. The report identifies that very clearly. There is no regulatory framework for the industry, and it would be necessary to establish a single national regulator to cover all the aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, drawing heavily again on overseas expertise. We have existing Australian laws that ban the establishment of nuclear fuel cycle facilities from power plants to enrichment plants. That goes to the question that was asked today by Senator Carr about whether or not the minister would consider overriding state powers on that important issue.

They are just some of the problems that we have. But it was very clear from what I have read of the report that the critical issue on the table is climate change. The report underlines that very clearly. Global warming is real, despite the protestations from those who suggest that it is not an issue. There is a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and yet we have the rejection of the electric car—that is not part of the solutions—and we have a very urgent need for the government on this issue, as with drought, not to go for quick-fix short-term solutions that create environmental disasters in the future.

The Switkowski report makes the best possible case for the nuclear industry—I will give it that—but it is a very overoptimistic case. I suggest that in many respects it is quite misleading. Not to be missed from all this—and I am sure Senator Crossin will pick it up—is the whole waste issue, which is trivialised in this report. Also not to be missed from all this is the high-handed approach of the parliamentary secretary for water, Mr Turnbull, linking nuclear reactors with the possibility of desalination plants to solve our water problems. Neither of those solutions really is in the best interests of the Australian community. Neither of those solutions is going to deliver any responses to the critical water issues that we are facing currently, not in 10 years time.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that honourable senators will look at the contribution to this debate today of Senator Stephens and compare it to the contribution of Senator Carr. I suppose in some respects no-one should be surprised about Senator Carr’s comments today, but I think Senator Stephens has sensibly discussed some of the issues that we all need to talk about. It was a sensible contribution. I think Senator Stephens said that global warming is real and there is a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Absolutely. But what contribution did we hear from Senator Carr? He made those hand movements—the wringing hands that we expect from Senator Carr when he is trying to look sensible and make a contribution to the public debate. The only contribution that Senator Carr made today was to talk about the corporations power and the threat of ‘not in my backyard’. Did Senator Carr make one sensible contribution to the debate today? No, he did not. Did Senator Stephens attempt to make some sensible contribution to this debate today? Yes, she did.

Surely, we in this country are mature enough, politically and otherwise, to have a sensible debate about this matter. But, Senator Carr, your contribution, I am afraid, was what I would expect from you—that is, it was about the fear, about the backyard and about the corporations power. Did you sensibly discuss this issue today? Did you take the opportunity to make a contribution about what was in the Switkowski report? Did you have a look at the options that are facing this country over the next 50 years, of which nuclear power may well be one? I am probably in the camp which, for a wide variety of reasons, thinks it is highly unlikely. But does that mean we do not discuss these matters? Does that mean that we do not look at what the options are? Do we not owe it to our kids and our grandkids to look at these options?

While I sometimes disagree with Matt Price, particularly on some of the comments he makes about me, over the weekend—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is what? He is a lap-dog for the Liberal Party, you say? I do not think so.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what you just said. Matt Price quoted Ziggy Switkowski saying, ‘The only way you can justify any nuclear into the mix is if you are determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’ That is absolutely right, and that is what this debate is about: how we best address the issue of reducing greenhouse emissions. Quite clearly, nuclear driven electricity generation will achieve that. Is it the best way of achieving it? That is what the community needs to debate. That is what we need to have a look at. And we need to have a look at whether we are better off investing large amounts of community resources in clean coal technology. We need to have a realistic assessment of whether solar and wind power will provide the electricity generation this country will need over the next 50 years to provide jobs for our children and to continue the growth of our economy. That is the debate we need to have in relation to this.

The debate we do not need to have is a Senator Carr debate, which is about saying, ‘Tell me where you are going to put them.’ What a disgraceful contribution to the debate it was from you, Senator Carr. And Senator Stephens, who is sitting behind you—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I knew you would arc up eventually. Senator Stephens, who is sitting behind you, should be sitting in front of you, because she is far more sensible than you will ever be, my friend. The fact is that you are there for factional reasons—(Time expired)

You are a goose.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order before I begin my speech: in Senator Ronaldson’s last comment I think he referred to my colleague Senator Carr as a goose. It might be appropriate if he seeks to withdraw that remark.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, I did not hear that. Please withdraw if you did so, Senator Ronaldson.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide a contribution to this debate and to take note of the answers provided today. We have had an emotive outburst from Senator Ronaldson in relation to being asked: where are the nuclear reactors actually going to go? It is of course a question that this government will evade for time immemorial, particularly between now and the next federal election. The government will not want to identify its full plans in terms of nuclear power. It is a debate that has been generated by a Prime Minister and by a government that is running out of ideas in terms of where it will take this country over the next decade. The government is grasping at straws and has decided once again to pick an issue that is highly irrelevant and that diverts the nation’s attention from this government’s inability to come to grips with what is happening in terms of climate change. It is an attempt by this government to divert attention from why it has been so inadequate in dealing with environmental issues for the last 10 years.

This government is simply proposing that it swaps one set of problems for a dirty power source which no doubt will need a government subsidy to make it affordable. There is no doubt that people will have heard over previous weeks that either this government introduces an emissions tax or charge on its coal fired energy and commits to the Kyoto protocol or we will have taxpayers subsidising outrageously unaffordable nuclear energy. I have heard time and time again in the media that Australians will not be able to afford nuclear power because it is so expensive. But it is a path that this government believes it needs to take us down one year prior to the election. The government’s current strategy on nuclear power also shows that there is a need to bully the Northern Territory into taking its radioactive waste. We might spend a lot of time talking about signing Kyoto or not and about greenhouse gas emissions and taxes versus the nuclear fuel cycle but, at the end of the day, let us have a discussion about where the nuclear waste will go if we enter the nuclear fuel cycle.

We know, quite categorically, that in the last 18 months this government has made a decision to override Northern Territory government laws, to totally ignore the discussion and the wishes of Indigenous traditional owners in the Northern Territory and to simply seek to dump onto the Northern Territory the radioactive waste that is coming back from France and Scotland and the radioactive waste that it now stores at Lucas Heights. For forever and a day people in the Northern Territory will remember Senator Ian Campbell’s infamous line when, two days prior to the last federal election, he said, ‘I give you a categorical assurance that the nuclear waste dump will not be put in the Northern Territory.’ That was a lie. And so was the commitment by the Prime Minister prior to that election that the Northern Territory was not on the nuclear waste dump map—another lie.

People in the Territory have been deceived about the issue of where this country wants to dump waste. We know that there are casks returning from France—there is debate about whether it is 2011 or 2015. We know now that those casks will involve storage of not only uranium but also plutonium because that is what you get at the end cycle when you embark on nuclear energy. Some people might suggest, as the Switkowski report suggests, that Australia could store high, medium, and low-level waste, that we have the place to do it. I know that they are thinking of outback Australia because in their minds no-one lives there, it is nobody’s home. It is somebody’s home when you come to the Territory. If we are going to have a radioactive dump in this country that will be the result of our embarking on a nuclear fuel cycle let us build it in the seat of Bennelong. Why not the seat of Hastings or even the seat of Kalgoorlie? No, we could not do that. They are Liberal held seats and we would not want to get those voters offside. We will just dump it without consultation and without care in the seat of Lingiari. Why is that? Oh, that is only where Indigenous people in this country live and surely they do not care or mind. Not only that, the rest of the country will not care or mind either. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to take note of various ministers’ answers in relation to climate change and nuclear energy. I want to begin by saying that it is time this whole parliament started to take climate change very seriously. It is no good continually grandstanding and playing games because this is the crisis of the century. The government has no consistent policy, no thought-out policy, to respond to climate change. It is mixing up two issues—energy security and climate change—and as a result we have got a plethora of policies all over the place with ministers contradicting one another left, right and centre.

Let us start with the Prime Minister. Less than two months ago he said that he was sceptical about the more gloomy predictions for climate change. No, we were not going to have an emissions trading scheme. It would break the economy and drive Australia into the doldrums. It would make us uncompetitive. Then shortly afterwards he said that we were going to have an emissions trading scheme. In fact we were having a task force to look into it. The very day that the nuclear draft report came down the Prime Minister was out reassuring the coal industry—having said only a week before that we were going to look into emissions trading—that a price on carbon would be some time off and they need not worry.

What is going on here? We have got totally inconsistent policy left, right and centre. On the one hand you give the coal industry as much as you possibly can by way of government funding for carbon capture and storage and reassure the coal industry that you will not be having a price on carbon any time soon. Then suddenly you find out that the Business Council of Australia is going to support an emissions trading system so you rush out and say, ‘Let us have a task force to look into it and include you people, but nobody else,’ because the Prime Minister could not afford to be left isolated by the Business Council of Australia going out ahead of him.

Then on climate change matters suddenly we have the idea that nuclear is going to save the day in spite of the fact that the chairman of the task force said quite clearly that this is a strategy for some 50 years into the future—for 2050. That being the case, perhaps the minister for the environment or the finance minister can explain to the business community in Australia why they have lobbed into the middle of the business community the biggest grenade of insecurity and uncertainty. This is a government that has gone to election after election on the basis that it is the best economic manager and now in Australia nobody is prepared to invest at the moment in any of the energy areas because they simply have got no consistent signal out of the government as to where it is going to go. Would you invest in renewable energy right now not knowing whether you are going to have emissions trading or not and not knowing how a price was going to be set? Would you invest in nuclear when the private sector has said quite clearly that there will be no investment in nuclear without bipartisan support, and clearly there is not?

We have also got a situation where Minister Macfarlane reassured the business community and the Australian community that there would be no government subsidies involved in nuclear, and a week later he changed his mind. Now we will have government subsidies in nuclear. In fact the chairman of the task force said that not only would it require a price on carbon but it would require ongoing government subsidies. Then we were told that this is the way of the future for jobs. In that very task force report it said that the entry to enrichment, for example, is so difficult that Australian companies would not benefit; it would be multinational companies mainly based in France, the UK and the US that would benefit. So we are all over the shop on this.

The other thing that the chairman of the nuclear task force pointed out was that Australia does not need nuclear for energy security. So, Senator Minchin, your citing of Tony Blair in relation to energy security has got nothing to do with climate change. Prime Minister Blair has said that it is going to cost £70 billion for them to continue to refurbish and go down the track of decommissioning their old nuclear power plants, and you cannot even put a price on decommissioning Lucas Heights. In the budget this very year you refused to put a price on decommissioning Lucas Heights. Now we are told by the nuclear task force that the price of decommissioning is going to be factored into the price of power. The government is all over the shop on energy policy and has thrown total insecurity into the energy market. If ever there was irresponsible economics, it is from this government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.