Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to continue my remarks on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. It was some time ago when I started to speak on this bill. I think I got about four minutes into my speech before the debate was adjourned for question time that day. I see some degree of irony in the fact that this bill has come on for continuation of the second reading debate today, just after the report into nuclear power has been released. This report is known as the Switkowski report. I think most people have picked up on the fact that this is a report from a hand-picked committee designed to produce a predetermined outcome. I want to come back to that issue in a moment but I firstly want to make some comments about the bill that is before the parliament. This legislation makes a number of changes to the act and, for the most part, we do not disagree with the government’s proposals.

Certainly, a key feature of the legislation is that it will enable ANSTO to manage our nuclear waste in a more sensible and more efficient manner. One of the issues that have arisen—and it is a fact that people in the government did not pick up on this some time ago—is that under the current legislative framework ANSTO does not have the legal authority to manage all of the nuclear waste in this country. There are real questions about whether or not it can manage all of the waste that it produces at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor and at its other facilities—the cyclotrons.

I think everyone who has followed this debate knows that the spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights are currently sent overseas to France for reprocessing. In the past some of that material has been sent to facilities at Sellafield in the UK. A key part of the agreement to have that nuclear waste processed overseas is that eventually it returns to Australia. That will commence in a few years time—I think the date is around 2011 or 2012—when the waste from the old reactor at Lucas Heights, known as the HIFAR, will commence to be returned to Australia. That waste has to be stored somewhere. Where the waste will eventually be stored has always been a major issue in the ongoing debate about Australia’s nuclear industry.

The technical problem that has arisen—and I am no scientist, but this is how I understand it—is that when the waste is taken overseas and reprocessed in France by Cogema it gets mixed up with a whole lot of other waste material that is being reprocessed, maybe from other reactors. So in a technical sense it is not exactly the same waste that we sent over there in the first place. So this amending legislation will ensure that in the future there will be no disputing ANSTO’s capacity to receive that waste back and to store it.

We agree with that. It is a valid exercise of the parliament’s power to make amending legislation to deal with that circumstance. But what is more important in this debate is that this highlights the government’s failure to properly address a range of nuclear issues that have been on foot, at least going back to the early 1990s. We have always known that the Lucas Heights reactor was eventually going to have to be shut down. It is planned to be shut down in the next year or two when the new OPAL reactor is fully commissioned.

Back in 1993 the Keating government commissioned an inquiry which produced a report on whether or not there should be a new reactor built and, if so, where it should be located. I want to refer to this inquiry report. It was the report of the Research Reactor Review, August 1993, Future reaction. It is otherwise known as the McKinnon report because the committee was chaired by Professor Ken McKinnon. Firstly, in its findings on the issue of waste storage and disposal, the report stated:

A crucial issue is the final disposal of high level waste which depends upon identification of a site and investigation of its characteristics. A solution to this problem is essential and necessary well prior to any future decision about a new reactor.

Secondly, the review committee went on to state:

If a decision were to be made to construct a new reactor, it would not necessarily best be placed at Lucas Heights. An appropriate site would best be decided after exhaustive search, taking into account community views.

I draw attention to those two findings of the McKinnon report because they go to the heart of what is at issue in the current discussion about nuclear power in this country. What the McKinnon report was saying was that before the government makes any decision about whether it needs a new research reactor, let alone a power reactor—the committee was only looking at a new research reactor—there should be clear evidence that the issue of waste had been resolved, that a location for a waste facility in this country had been determined.

In 1997, after this government had only been in power for a year or so, the then minister for science, Mr McGauran, announced that there would be a new reactor built at Lucas Heights to replace the HIFAR. There was never any proper investigation of alternative sites. This Senate, this parliament, conducted a number of inquiries. I chaired one of them. But every time we sought to get information from the government as to whether or not it had considered alternative sites to Lucas Heights we were told either that that was confidential information or that it was an irrelevant issue. Indeed, as we found out later, one of the reasons the government could not tell us where those sites were that had been looked at was that that might scare the people who lived in the communities in those areas. The second point about that decision is that it was made when no investigation had been conducted into the location of a waste facility. So the government made a major decision without any consideration of the recommendations in the McKinnon review.

I have spoken about this on many occasions and I do not want to go into too much detail again now. But we now see the same approach being repeated; it is a rerun of that history. What did we see with the government’s decision to locate the proposed waste facility in the Northern Territory? First of all, we saw the government decide that it would be located in South Australia—that was its preferred location. In South Australia at the time that that was announced not only did the state Labor government say they would not accept it but the state Liberal Party said they would not accept it either. The Liberal Party opposition in South Australia said: ‘Not in our backyard. We’ve had enough of the nuclear industry in South Australia,’ with the mines that they have there now and the problems that occurred after the nuclear testing at Maralinga after World War II. So, when the Liberal Party in South Australia said they were not going to have a waste dump in their state, the Liberal-National Party government federally said, ‘Okay, they don’t want one, so we’re not going to give them one.’ The government then said it would be built on Commonwealth land.

Since then, the government have announced that it will be located in the Northern Territory. They still have not told us exactly where it will be in the Northern Territory. They have named a number of sites, and people have had to go through various processes to drag the details out of the government as to which actual sites they are considering. Of course, before the last federal election, promises had been made that under no circumstances would a nuclear waste dump be located in the Northern Territory, including, as I understand it, by Senator Scullion from the Northern Territory. But that was all jettisoned after the election. Once the government had won, they very quickly changed their mind, Senator Scullion’s interests were pushed to one side and the Northern Territory is going to have the waste dump. Actually, I would not necessarily argue that it is not a suitable place to have a nuclear waste facility; I can think of quite a number of other places in this country that might be suitable. But the point is that at no stage have the government ever considered the interests of the people of those communities, just as they never took any notice of the interests of the communities of the Sutherland shire when they made their announcement about the replacement reactor at Lucas Heights.

So we now move to what has happened in the last few weeks. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has decided that nuclear power should be on the agenda. According to him, we should consider building nuclear power plants around Australia. That is an interesting proposal because it was only a couple of years ago that the government put legislation through this parliament to establish the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—ARPANSA, as it is known. If you have a look at the legislation that established ARPANSA you will notice that it specifically excludes a range of nuclear facilities from the list that the agency is able to license—in other words, the head of ARPANSA, Dr Loy, is prevented from licensing certain nuclear facilities. And one of the nuclear facilities that he is prevented from licensing is a nuclear power plant.

So what we have had is this issue being thrown out there into the community by the current government and a report commissioned. Yet it was only a couple of years ago that this government put through this parliament the ARPANSA legislation, which regulates the nuclear industry in this country. It is confined to the research reactor plus some other facilities such as cyclotrons. The government said that it would not entertain the idea of nuclear power plants and it would not entertain the idea of enrichment. Indeed, Minister Minchin himself has said that time and time again. Yet we have this phoney debate being put up by the Prime Minister as his response to the major issue of climate change. So whilst we support this legislation, because it makes technical changes to the act that are required, this government has a lot to answer for in its failure to involve the community in its decision making with regard to the nuclear industry.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I was absolutely delighted to hear at the end of the previous contribution, from Senator Forshaw, that those opposite will in fact be supporting what I would have thought is a highly commendable piece of legislation, despite the considerable add-ons from the other side that I think do not really inform the Australian public—in fact, in a number of cases, misinforms them. So I will talk primarily to the bill, but I would like to correct some errors from the other side.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 effectively clarifies the role that ANSTO can play in the management of radioactive materials and waste on behalf of the Commonwealth. I think we are all agreed that is a pretty basic premise and one that would be supported. It also provides ANSTO with the clear authority to manage the reprocessed spent fuel returning to Australia from the overseas reprocessing facilities, as per a contractual arrangement between Australia and those countries and a contractual arrangement that is reflected between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The bill also ensures that the Commonwealth can provide any assistance necessary to the states and territories, and obviously the enforcement sections of those jurisdictions, in the event of a hopefully unlikely catastrophe and in the event of a radiological terrorist incident; and it removes any legal impediment to ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It is pretty basic, I would have thought. But, instead of simple support for these very good notions, we have had quite a bit of dissent from the other side that I think is unhelpful in view of the Senate’s very important role of informing the public on a whole range of matters.

Those on the other side, and quite a number of people who have not supported the legislation—disappointingly, some of those individuals are from the crossbenches—have asserted that this bill effectively opens the door to import and treat foreign waste. In other words, the notion is given that somehow waste from other countries that has nothing to do with Australia may come to Australia to be treated—which is of course absolute rubbish. There is no part of this amendment bill that does that. In fact, it clarifies ANSTO’s role in this matter: that they may manage waste arising from the conditioning of ANSTO spent fuel. It is very clear: ANSTO spent fuel. If you look at that through a definitional sort of process, that is fuel that has been irradiated by ANSTO at Lucas Heights. Nothing is unclear about that to me. I would have thought it beyond belief that one would somehow find that confusing.

I think that there are those also on the other side who live in this fool’s paradise—perhaps not only from the other side; I think some of these comments came from the Democrats, to be fair to those who are glancing at me oddly on the other side. There are those who have spoken against this bill, and I think they have been disturbingly misled that we should somehow rely on other countries to provide for radiopharmaceuticals. There is always mention of cyclotrons and other alternatives. The fact of the matter is that there are no alternatives available to producing some radioactive isotopes in a timely fashion, because of the short half-life, to be available to the Australian health system.

Somebody who I think is fairly reputable in this area, Dr ElBaradei, who heads up the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a media statement late last year—I do not have the exact quote in my head—in effect that the biggest threat to the procurement of radiopharmaceuticals in an international sense was a growing reluctance from the airlines to carry radiopharmaceuticals. So anybody who is deciding to put the future of the health system of their country in the hands of others I think has made a very poor decision indeed. Conversely, Australia, which has decided to have some independence with regard to the provision of radiopharmaceuticals, and the very important aspect of our health system that deals with that, has made a very good decision indeed.

When I am talking about people being disturbingly misled, we have a serial offender in Senator Trish Crossin. I read with some dismay her contribution to this place during the last sittings. It is those little things that tend to grate with me personally—this almost childish referral to these things as ‘dumps’. It is very cool; the media will pick that up. But we are well and truly over that. In terms of trying to inform people, a ‘dump’ in a lot of people’s minds is a radioactive drum that is leaking and there is a big hole in the ground and we are sort of pouring stuff into the ground. What does that do? Does that seek to inform the Australian people? Or does it seek to misinform the Australian public about the intention of the Commonwealth in looking after their best interests?

I read with great interest Paul Toohey’s article in the most recent Bulletin, where he talks about some traditional owners being very concerned. The traditional owners were talking about a DVD or some photographs they were shown by an ‘environmentalist’ of children born without a face and without arms. Those sorts of scare tactics, whether they are absolute horror stories by some so-called environmentalists at the really rough end or the same disingenuous approach taken to this whole issue by people in this place like Senator Crossin, who continually refers to this process as ‘a dump’, are grubby tactics. It does her no good and, I have to say, it does not do this place any good.

Senator Crossin, in trying to inform the public, is saying, when the returning fuel comes from another country, ‘Of course, it’s not all our fuel.’ This is all about equivalence and proportionalities. There is nothing particularly difficult to understand. Perhaps I should refer Senator Crossin to economics 1 when she takes her dollar and puts it in the bank. When she goes to get her dollar back out of the bank will she look at it and say, ‘Oh, sir, this isn’t the same dollar; I want exactly the same dollar that I put in’? It is a complete nonsense. It misleads people about the fact that ANSTO’s material gets reprocessed overseas. We get back a proportional equivalent in this country as per a very carefully negotiated agreement that comes under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and is used as current world’s best practice around the globe. Again, she seeks to mislead and misinform individuals about this and, as I said, it brings her no credit.

Interestingly, in her contribution in the last sittings, Senator Crossin continued to say, ‘How dare the Commonwealth try to close loopholes!’ We found loopholes and we are deeming to close them; how dare we! It is sad that I have not heard Senator Crossin talk about the importance of the provision of radiopharmaceuticals, which is a fundamental part of our health system. I visited a hospital in Sydney recently, and they were going through the importance of products like technetium and the difference it has made to women, particularly women with breast cancer. In the dark old days a full mastectomy was required simply because it was very difficult to identify the exact location of lymph nodes under which a tumour may be draining. With the provision of technetium there is at least a good chance of finding out at the right time exactly which lymph nodes the tumour is draining into and therefore allowing far more forensic surgery. That is what we take for granted nowadays.

Those people who are misinforming us about the importance of the provision of radiopharmaceuticals to this country are simply running down the whole process of responsibility. We say that we have a right to a good system, but every right comes with a responsibility. The responsibility is to meet our requirements as Australians, as a nation and as individuals to ensure that we meet our agreement. We said that we are going to have the benefit of radiopharmaceuticals. Therefore, we need to take back the reprocessed fuel rods that are the waste for a reactor that does not produce power; it simply produces medicine. It is absolutely safe. There is no question about that and yet there are those on the other side who always like to say, ‘We’re a bit funny about this; we’re not sure how safe this really is.’

Senator Crossin goes on to say, ‘France has only high-level waste; obviously Senator Scullion is misleading you, as this intermediate-level waste is a bit of a furphy.’ If she has even a perfunctory glance at the legislation we are amending she will see in a series of definitions that it is very easy: high-level waste is waste that develops more than two kilowatts of energy. It is very simple: above that, it is high-level waste; below that, it is intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste is measured on a completely different continuum because it is so low. It is not the sort of stuff we make up. If you continue to look to the ARPANSA or the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed up by Dr ElBaradei, they give us guidance on those things. To say that we are misleading the public and that this is high-level waste is another furphy designed to confuse and frighten rather than to inform.

Parts of the contribution the other day absolutely stunned me. Senator Crossin told us that we need to be really careful because she read in a newspaper somewhere—an absolute tome of truth—that there was no security at ANSTO. She referred to an article about the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights not being well looked after and ‘protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway’. She said:

This level of security may have been deemed as broadly adequate by the then Acting Prime Minister, John Anderson; however, this standard of security is deemed simply unacceptable by just about everyone else.

Maybe Senator Crossin forgets—maybe that is what it is. But, interestingly, she made that contribution during the last set of sittings. I am sure there is no mischief in it; I am sure that she just does not bother to follow the issues. But, perhaps, just for her information I could draw her attention to a media ethics committee that actually considered, surprisingly, this journalist’s report. I think it is very important. I will read the letter of complaint to ANSTO. It deals with the exact quote that Senator Crossin made when she said:

The back door to one of the nation’s prime terrorist targets is protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway.

Had someone wrapped themselves in the truth of this particular statement—it is a couple of weeks ago—one would have thought that they would have informed themselves that back in June this is what ANSTO had to say about the issue:

As you will note from the attached media clip, Jonathan Porter, the journalist who wrote the article, reported that one of the nation’s prime terrorist targets is protected by a cheap padlock and a stern warning against trespassing or blocking the driveway. This is a lie. Mr Porter is very well aware of various levels of protection around the ANSTO research reactor, as only three days before he was personally escorted into the high security area where the reactor is housed, which is surrounded by double fencing and razor wire, as well as having 24-hour, seven-day a week video surveillance and armed guard protection.

That is right; this is the same description: it has 24/7 video surveillance and armed guard protection. It has a multitiered electronic pass system, so assessing the reactor is certainly not as simple as snapping the padlock and driving the 800 metres or so to the reactor, as the article states. Mr Porter chose to ignore the facts and present incorrect information of outrageous proportions, presumably in pursuit of a front-page article. These are the materials that were used by Senator Crossin in this place to try to besmirch the very good security and officers of ANSTO.

Mr Porter’s article also made incorrect statements regarding the consequences of an attack on the reactor’s cooling towers. When he visited the ANSTO site and its reactor, Mr Porter was accompanied by executive director Dr Ian Smith and media advisor Sharon Kelly. Mr Porter asked Dr Smith about the towers and Dr Smith clearly explained the failsafe systems that exist, stating that the reactor would close down immediately should anything happen to the cooling towers. This expert information was not put forward and more fiction was set into play to paint a dismal picture of the reactor’s security. In addition, Adam Cobb, to whom he refers, has never visited the ANSTO site and is not familiar with the security arrangements.

The letter goes on to say that the article also stated that the Weekend Australian journalist and photographers parked a one-tonne van outside the back gate for more than half an hour. This misleading term ‘back gate’—repeated in this place, I might add, by one Senator Crossin—used in the article is a totally misrepresentative description of a gate on a fire trail on the outer perimeter surrounding bushland, which does not form part of ANSTO’s secure grounds. In addition, when the journalist and his photographers did leave the main road and came close to ANSTO’s perimeter, they were quickly approached by the Australian Federal Police officers who were there to in fact ensure the protection of the site and to prevent anyone setting foot on ANSTO’s soil.

The panel concluded that the ANSTO complaint has been made out. They went on to say that they could have recommended a range of penalties but declined to do so in this case, believing that the finding, which upholds the complaint, is sufficient vindication for the complainant. So much for Senator Crossin informing this place. It was not for me to make the case, but for an ethics committee to make the case. Talking about being ethical in the place, senators should inform themselves about the sort of information that they bring to this place when they stand up and put their hands on their hearts and say, ‘I’m informing Australians.’ Senator Crossin’s recent contribution was hardly informing Australians.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alarming Australians.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Parry. We also have had a second reading amendment moved by Senator Stephens. Reading the amendment, I am not sure whether Senator Crossin stepped in some cold water. The amendment is about the process of placing a radioactive waste facility in the Northern Territory. It talks about the imposition of a waste dump on the Northern Territory being extremely arrogant. I cannot stress any harder that, when the Commonwealth runs out of choices, this government is proud to act and show some leadership to ensure that we protect the fundamental rights of access to the very best health care that the world can offer. Australia continues to offer that and will continue to support those processes that do so.

That section of the amendment condemns the government for breaking a specific promise made before the last election not to locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory. I find this pretty amusing, really. Why are we in this position? If you want to talk about people being disingenuous, let us talk about Mike Rann, who agreed to undertake a four-year study after 1998 to ensure that we found the very best place for all Australians. Every state and territory agreed that that was the process. At a few minutes to midnight, Mike Rann said, ‘Let’s have a bit of mischief.’ That is why we are in the very sad position where there has to be some imposition on the Northern Territory. But we tried all other options.

This little network amazes me. We have Clare Martin, who is absolutely outraged that we might have radioactive materials travelling on the roads. They could even go by train, Senator Parry. Wouldn’t that be appalling? How does Mike Rann get his yellowcake into Darwin? By the train—with the full consent of Clare Martin, the Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. Disingenuous? I do not have a great grasp of the English language, but I am sure that there are some stronger terms that could be applied to that particular set of disingenuous circumstances.

The amendment goes on to talk about the destruction of recourse to procedural fairness. The fairness was over when they reneged on a national campaign that cost millions of dollars and which everybody had agreed to and which was for the benefit of every single Australian because it would have guaranteed that all of our radioactive material was safely stored in a single and sensible repository. The Labor government in South Australia at the last minute said, ‘Sorry, we only gave our word, and that doesn’t really count for a lot.’ It is fairly sad. The last part of the amendment condemns us because we are keeping secret the plan for the siting of our nuclear power stations—when the report came fresh off the press yesterday. But I am not expecting too much of the other side.

It is a fairly simple bill. It clarifies the roles that ANSTO takes in the managing of radioactive materials on behalf of the Commonwealth. It provides us with a clear authority to take back the reprocessing plants, because that was part of the arrangement that we made, and it ensures that the Commonwealth provides further assistance to the states and territories with regard to their compliance regime and their police forces in the unlikely event of an act of terrorism. It is an excellent amendment to a very good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the chamber.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion is right in one respect: the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 appears to be simple at first glance. What Senator Scullion failed to mention was that the explanatory memorandum for the bill informs us that the purpose of this bill:

... is to amend the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 to allow the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to condition, manage and store radioactive material and radioactive waste other than that which may arise directly from ANSTO’s activities.

That is right: other than that which may arise directly from their activities.

This bill allows us to examine the issues of nuclear power generation, uranium mining and waste management as part of our deliberations. It was interesting to hear Senator Scullion’s contribution on how safe waste storage in particular is. If it were so safe, you would think that Senator Scullion would be happy to have a nuclear waste dump in his backyard, or anyone in any state that does have jurisdiction—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that right? You are happy to have that, are you, Senator Scullion?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are happy to have it in your back garden?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Safe as houses.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it were so safe, you would think that anyone who lived in any state, or any state government, would agree to it. They are not convinced—hence the federal government wants to override one territory government to ensure storage. It is not safe. The Australian people are not convinced of its safety. However, as I say, the EM for the bill says that it will allow ANSTO to ‘condition, manage and store radioactive material other than that which may arise directly from ANSTO’s activities’.

As I said, this bill allows us to examine the many issues related to nuclear power generation. We in this place and in the Australian community are now repeatedly being told by the leaders of the federal Liberal Party and the nuclear industry that nuclear power is the way of the future. They claim that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, that nuclear power solves our greenhouse gas problems, that nuclear power is cheap and safe and that we must embrace it because otherwise we are heading for economic and environmental disaster.

Currently there are 441 nuclear reactors worldwide. There are plans for 56 new reactors to be built. That of course is without those proposed in the government commissioned report—the 25 extra. China is building three new reactors each year, but that is not good enough for this government; they have a report stating they want 25. Just the other day in Sydney the director of the World Nuclear Association told a conference that we would need to build an additional 8,800 reactors to prevent an environmental catastrophe.

The Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the United States and our own Prime Minister have all embraced the idea that we need to build new reactors as a means of dealing with climate change, environmental challenges and the increased demand for electricity. In this country, the government have tried to soften us up. They have tried to soften us up with stories in the print media, often contributed by politicians or nuclear industry insiders, and stories on 60 Minutes telling us that nuclear power is now the answer. Then of course the Prime Minister set up his own expert advisory panel to report on this issue—the report that we got last week.

I have seen and read many of the contributions in this debate, both in this chamber and the other place. I have heard the arguments about greenhouse gas emissions, about the role of nuclear medicine and about the safety, reliability and economics of nuclear power. However, I keep coming back to one simply statement. That statement was not made by a world leader, a scientist or even an environmentalist. It was made by a person who in fact has the potential to develop into any one of those things. That person is a 14-year-old girl, a year 9 student, who, after listening to a robust forum attended by industry and environmental representatives conducted in the northern suburbs of Perth earlier this year—in fact, in my office—came up to me and said, ‘They don’t know how to get rid of the waste properly, and there are other ways to get power.’ That of course echoes the concerns of millions of people worldwide.

Recently, petitions have been circulated in country towns in Western Australia about nuclear waste dumps. I have presented many of those petitions in this place. To say that I was overwhelmed by the response would be an understatement. People living in rural and regional Western Australia do not want a nuclear waste dump—not now, not ever. And they are very lucky: because they live in a state and not a territory, this government cannot override their wishes. Petitions on nuclear power have also been presented in this place from residents of Perth. Two more local government authorities have recently passed motions to make themselves nuclear free: the City of Joondalup, which has a mayor who is a member of the Liberal Party; and the City of Sterling, which also has a mayor who is a member of the Liberal Party. These petitions and actions at a local level have been driven by the Australian people’s realisation that they were being softened up for a dramatic change in national direction on nuclear power.

Let us just consider some of the more important statements in the nuclear power debate. The minister for industry claims that the construction of a nuclear power reactor in this country could commence within the next 10 years. Information available suggests that from the start of construction to commissioning takes five years. So, even if we started right now, we would see no power generated by nuclear power in this country until perhaps the year 2021. It is difficult to see how undertaking a project that will not yield any power for 15 years or so is the answer to climate change. Surely we could be using technology for renewable energy, such as wind or solar, that will not take us 15 years to implement. Much of that technology is already available and is proven to work. Look at Denmark: Denmark will produce over 50 per cent of its power from wind energy alone by the year 2030. Surely we could produce a significant percentage of power in this country from wind energy within the 15 years it would take to commission a nuclear power plant.

We are told by experts that to make nuclear power viable in Australia we would have to have approximately five or six nuclear power stations, ideally on coastal sites and within 100 kilometres of major cities. Indeed, the government-commissioned report recommends 25 such sites. They have to be built with reliable sources of water for cooling and power generation. Given the experts are now saying that we are facing a serious shortfall of water in this country, the concept that we should be using scarce water to generate power is more than slightly ridiculous.

Take the situation in France, which is held up as the pinup nation as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, so much so that even Senator Scullion referred to it. France gets 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power generation. Last summer when France experienced a severe heatwave it had to buy electricity on the European spot market. The reason France had to do this was because water supplies at several reactor sites had reached a critical level and plants had to be shut down.

Of course when this proposition is put to industry advocates they immediately say that nuclear power can drive desalination plants to supply the water that they need. That makes it easier to understand why they want to position them on coastal sites. I understand that the best possible pricing for the construction of a nuclear reactor able to supply power would be in the vicinity of $2 billion to $3 billion. So to put five or six in this country is going to cost us somewhere in the vicinity of $10 billion to $15 billion. Imagine what 25 would cost. So Australia is looking at an enormous inflow of specialised equipment imports over the coming 10 to 15 years. Who is going to pay for that? We know that in the United States between 1947 and 1999 there were direct subsidies of some $115 billion to the nuclear power industry with indirect subsidies of an additional $145 billion. Will the nuclear power industry advocated for in this country be based purely on a commercial basis or will the taxpayers have to contribute?

Next let us turn to the supplies of uranium. Currently some 20 countries around the world have uranium deposits. Two-thirds of the total world production comes from just 10 mines. Australia currently produces about 22 per cent of world supply. Australia is claimed to have about 40 per cent of world reserves of uranium. Prices for uranium have risen enormously over the last decade. Estimates based on planned reactors suggest that the worldwide supply of uranium has to double to meet the demand anticipated. Consider this: if the present global output of electricity were obtained entirely from nuclear reactors as efficiently as best practice allowed, the uranium in all the known rich ore bodies in the world would keep them going for just nine years. So nuclear power using uranium is not the long-term answer for global electricity generation or for our environment. It is passing strange, to say the least, that when we are now talking about the issues around peak oil we should be considering an industry in Australia that would see uranium reserves depleted so quickly. Now, when the government’s polling must be telling them that the issue of climate change is starting to take hold in the electorate, they resort to the nuclear option.

I note that Senator Heffernan said the other day that the rainfall in this country had changed and we should be encouraging farmers to move to where the rain is. I would like to suggest another option. Why are we not encouraging our farmers, especially those on lands that are still in the grip of a long-term drought, to consider farming renewable energy? There is no need to suggest that they move north. How about a suggestion to farm something else: farm the electricity producing power of wind or that of the sun.

Then there is the issue that Senator Scullion was talking about, the issue of waste. The people of South Australia rejected the Commonwealth’s attempt to place a nuclear waste facility in their state. The government also knew that the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia and the people of my home state also did not want a nuclear waste dump. The Commonwealth therefore places the waste facility in the Northern Territory where they can override the wishes of the local population. That is because the government of the Northern Territory, as I say, cannot prevent the facility being located there. That is the only reason for the choice of site.

I am always amazed that the issue of a nuclear waste dump is presented as a safe proposition, that there are going to be adequate safety provisions and security and that there is no risk to the community or the environment. However, there are no proposals to store this material in populous states or in major cities, although apparently Senator Scullion is happy to have one in his backyard. No, even with all their assurances and guarantees, they are storing it in a remote area of the Northern Territory. I have seen that even some government backbenchers are concerned.

Not so long ago the member for Tangney, Dr Jensen, said that he was quite prepared for a nuclear reactor to be built in his electorate. In the West Australian on 25 May 2005 Dr Jensen said that he would have no problem with a nuclear reactor being built in Tangney so long as it was a fourth-generation reactor. It seems fair enough. Dr Jensen is one of the advocates in that other place for a nuclear power industry and it seems that case is strengthened by his preparedness to have one in his own electorate.

Fast forward to the 10 October 2006 edition of the West Australian, which reported that Dr Jensen had pledged to give up his house at Halls Head in the electorate of Brand or perhaps Forrest—because Halls Head is in both electorates—and move to his electorate of Tangney. We have not heard an update from Dr Jensen as to whether he is still prepared to have a nuclear reactor in his electorate now that he is proposing to live there.

The electorate that I represent is all of Western Australia, as we know, and I do not want a nuclear reactor or a nuclear waste facility in my electorate. A fairly straightforward choice faces the people of Western Australia at the election next year. Vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party and you are voting for a nuclear power industry—a vote for yesterday’s power generation answer. Vote for the waste and we will have to manage it not for one or two years, not even for one or two centuries, but one or two thousand centuries. This is not a problem for our grandchildren or even our great-grandchildren. This is about a waste management issue for hundreds of thousands of years. We will not address the issues of climate change, of power supply or of greenhouse gases by going down the nuclear reactor path. The future for this country and for the rest of the world is to invest in renewable sources of energy.

Vote for the Liberal Party or the National Party and you vote for nuclear reactors in this country that, at best, will not deliver any power for at least 15 years, even on the admission of the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in question time last month, when he said:

Under this government, wind energy capacity has increased in Australia by 7,000 per cent—from 10 megawatts in 2000 to 700 megawatts in 2005. Solar energy has also grown, with the number of solar hot-water systems ... doubling since 2000-01 and extra capacity in solar photovoltaic also being installed.

So why would they not continue down the path of renewable energy instead of this ridiculous attempt to jump onto the nuclear power bandwagon, whose time has well and truly passed?

If the wind energy capacity in this country continues to develop as it has over the first years of the 21st century without the interference of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage then we will end up with a nuclear industry that will not be required. A vote for the Labor Party at the next election will be a vote for an investment in renewable energy. A vote for Labor will be about meeting the challenge of climate change without looking backwards to a solution that is completely unsatisfactory.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Effective legislation that will ensure clarity in interpretation is an important priority of the Howard government. The bill that we are debating this evening, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, clearly exemplifies this. By reducing the complexity of legislation, the Howard government is reducing the costs of compliance that are a burden on our economy whilst also reducing the potential for loopholes to be found.

This bill will ensure that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will have effective management of radioactive materials in Australia in a practical way. Managing energy will be of the highest importance to Australia if we are to remain a prosperous nation throughout the 21st century. This was highlighted by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Hon. Ian MacFarlane, on 16 October this year at the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, when he spoke on the importance of effective management of nuclear energy as being complementary to other sources of energy.

The minister has reinforced the fact that Australia is leading the world in many aspects of the international collaboration on greenhouse gas reduction, clean energy development and public-private partnerships to commercialise projects using low emission technology. In underscoring the need for Australia to use cleaner fuels, he brought to our attention that we cannot simply overlook the importance of using nuclear fuel. Cleaner fuels will become a higher priority for all governments as we come to grips with the higher demand for energy and the possibility of global warming. Therefore, it is essential to consider the role of all energy sources.

Earlier this year, I arranged for the government members’ industry and resources committee, which I chair, to be briefed comprehensively by experts who understand the next generation of processing plants capable of full cycle nuclear power, including waste disposal, costing as little as 5c a kilowatt hour. When this is compared with 3.5c an hour for coal, 4.5c for gas, 8c for wind and 12c for solar power, clearly the role of nuclear energy must be considered. With over 30 countries already taking advantage of clean nuclear power, it would leave Australia at a competitive disadvantage to overlook the possibility of integration of this source into our energy management.

I think that is a point that needs to be reinforced when we listen to what the opposition senators have been saying in this debate. Anyone would think that Australia was embarking on some new adventure by considering the possibilities of nuclear energy generation, when in fact we are one of the few developed countries that do not use nuclear energy. As I said, there are some 30 countries around the world already taking advantage of clean nuclear power and in fact renewing their commitment to that source of energy. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, has outlined his scepticism toward carbon trading, as it so clearly places Australia at a competitive disadvantage. Imposing a carbon trading policy on Australian business would undoubtedly result in a commercial flight of investment and jobs. But, again, it needs to be considered.

Australia has more than 40 per cent of the world’s uranium supply, a resource we are currently selling to other nations for them to use as a source of energy. It would clearly be daft of us to give other nations a competitive advantage through using clean fuels derived from our natural resources of uranium and gas while we continue to sit back and do nothing, as the Labor opposition would seek to have us do. We must not fail—as those in opposition continue to do with regard to policy initiatives—to undertake important new initiatives and legislative changes with regard to nuclear energy. I commend the government strongly for being bold and confident enough to stimulate public debate on the future of nuclear energy in Australia.

It is time to consolidate a succinct policy of nuclear management under ANSTO. As it currently stands, ANSTO has the authority to prepare, manage and store those radioactive wastes associated with the organisation’s activities, unless specified by regulation. ANSTO, in the past year, had a majority of its publications deemed by the research performance assessment to be in the top 25 per cent internationally. It has also embraced corporate responsibility, reporting on the responses it has made to environmental, safety and social issues that affect staff, customers, the Australian community and key stakeholders. The bill we are considering would involve ANSTO being engaged as the pre-eminent nuclear science and research agency to manage additional radioactive materials that arise from beyond its own activities.

These three broad additional categories would allow ANSTO to, first:

Participate in the management of radioactive material and waste in the possession or under the control of any Commonwealth entity. This would include material designated to be stored at the proposed Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the Minister’s second reading speech indicates that ANSTO may be charged with operating that facility.

Secondly:

Where requested by a Commonwealth, State or Territory law enforcement or emergency response agency, deal with radioactive material and waste arising from a relevant incident, including a terrorist or criminal act.

And, thirdly:

Dealing with intermediate level waste (originating from spent nuclear fuel from ANSTO’s nuclear reactors) that is returned to Australia from overseas reprocessing facilities for storage and/or disposal.

Under the contractual arrangements that ANSTO has with the reprocessing plants in Scotland and France, Australian spent fuel may be combined with spent nuclear fuel from other sources and processed in bulk campaigns. Thus, technically, returned waste is not exclusively from ANSTO’s reactors, although the exact quantity would equate to that created by ANSTO.

This piece of legislation is very important for the future of Australia and for our role in all of the important future energy markets. The opposition have expressed scepticism in their arguments towards this legislation, arguing that it lacks public support, in particular from Northern Territorians who may be affected by a local federal processing and storage site. However, it needs to be said that the opposition is clutching at straw man arguments in relation to this bill. This legislation is important to ensure that all responsibility for the management of radioactive waste comes under ANSTO. It is for the benefit, not the detriment, of those concerned about radioactive waste that this be done. By putting ANSTO’s authority over the management of radioactive waste in Australia beyond doubt, we eliminate the duplication of any legal challenges to issues related to the management of radioactive waste. This is the clarity that is required for good legislation in the 21st century.

The government has suggested, following the tabling of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005, that storage of radioactive materials is likely to be in the Northern Territory. We need look no further than the arguments put forward by my Western Australian Senate colleague Senator Lightfoot in his speech in the second reading debate on that bill to understand that this is most appropriate. He clearly articulated that geological stability is the reason why the storage of radioactive waste should be in the Northern Territory. He explained that the rock under the Australian outback is the oldest in the world and that the stability this provides, free from any subterranean water flows, is the safest place in the world for the storage of radioactive waste. However, this is not an issue relevant to the bill before us, despite the arguments we have heard one after the other from opposition senators talking about the storage of radioactive waste in the Northern Territory. It is not the subject and it is not an issue in relation to this bill. There may be some arguments relevant to that issue but they are relevant to the waste management act and not the legislation we are debating tonight.

This bill is concerned with the management of radioactive material in Australia, not the location of its storage, so the contrived straw man arguments of the Labor opposition show how bereft they are of any policy with regard to the management of Australia’s resources in the international energy market. Continuing their traditional policy laziness that we have seen over the last decade, they fall back on scaremongering or points unrelated to the bill we are debating.

In the light of recent environmental and scientific developments, there needs to be a considered debate on nuclear energy in Australia. Many respected environmentalists have changed their opinion towards nuclear energy as it is clean, increasingly viable and complements the use of renewable energy resources. Just last week Dr Ziggy Switkowski released his landmark report that was initiated by the federal government on the possible future of the nuclear energy industry in Australia. He concluded that 25 nuclear reactors could produce a third of this country’s electricity by the year 2050.

The Prime Minister set up the inquiry entitled ‘Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy—Opportunities for Australia?’—the Switkowski inquiry—in June of this year to find out if a nuclear energy industry was viable in Australia and whether nuclear power would be a clean alternative to coal-fired power generation. The Switkowski report found that Australia, with about 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, could have a viable nuclear enrichment and power industry within 15 years as the cost of cleaner coal and gas power increases. The report found that Australia could have about 25 nuclear reactors, which, as I said, could supply about a third of our electricity by 2050, drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which currently contribute to global warming. Enrichment would also add billions of dollars to the value of uranium exports.

The report in its conclusion says that using nuclear energy to generate electricity involves fewer health and safety impacts than current technologies like coal, other fuel based generation and hydropower, taking into account both emissions during normal operation and the impact of accidents. In considering safety issues, the report notes that Australia is already an integral part of the long established international system for reviewing the scientific literature on radiation and its biological effects and for developing and issuing guidelines in achieving ever safer operation. Further, our health and safety requirements reflect best international practice.

It is a fact that nuclear power and renewable energy sources will become competitive in Australia in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised. We have every reason to be confident of Australia’s health and safety systems in an expanded uranium mining industry and the nuclear fuel cycle. In that context, I believe that nuclear energy would be an effective contributor to Australia’s energy economy much in the same way that it has been for other comparable nations.

Sadly, the Labor opposition will have none of this—no rational debate for them, just cynical opportunistic scaremongering and the ‘not in my backyard’ or NIMBY approach, writ large. We only need to look at the pathetically populist response of the state Labor premiers to the Switkowski report. Next time I hear them bleating about the need to account for the costs of greenhouse emissions, forgive me if I treat them with a measure of disdain. Clearly, they refuse to give rational consideration to an energy source which is made competitive by such accounting and also has the capacity to meet baseload energy requirements in Australia while not producing greenhouse gas.

The Prime Minister has encouraged public debate on the issue—and he is to be commended for so doing—so that we can explore in a rational way the potential benefits and ramifications of the use of nuclear energy, and all we get from the Labor opposition, as I say, is this cynical, opportunistic scaremongering in response.

The purpose of the bill is reinforced by the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. They argued:

It is prudent and rational that the scope of ANSTO’s legislated functions be broadened so other Common wealth agencies or law enforcement agencies and Commonwealth, State or Territory emergency or disaster agencies can access its considerable expertise in handling radioactive materials and waste.

This comment reflects the intention of the bill. Clear and effective legislation like this bill will see Australia continue to prosper in the future.

I note that concerns were also expressed by the Democrats, in the person of Senator Allison, that under the bill Australia may become a waste dump for foreign radioactive waste. That concern is unfounded. It is clearly stated that intermediate waste received from overseas will be accepted under this bill only if it equates to ANSTO spent fuel. This demonstrates that the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill is a sensible piece of legislation. It does not stand to make the Northern Territory a radioactive waste dump for foreign waste. It follows that the recommendations made by industry professionals that we provide ANSTO with the legislative power to fulfil their role effectively for all Australians warrant support.

Whether in times of emergency or otherwise, it is best to ensure that our pre-eminent nuclear science and research agency is capable of dealing with the management of nuclear material right across Australia. Although outside the scope of this bill, I do believe it remains the case that the Northern Territory is the safest location to store Australian radioactive material. It may in fact be the safest location for the storage of radioactive material in the world, as argued by Senator Lightfoot. But, again, that is not relevant to this legislation.

We need to manage our energy resources effectively, not only from an economic perspective but also, as this legislation will ensure, from a health and safety perspective. This bill will empower ANSTO, the most qualified organisation for the job, to manage radioactive waste in Australia in the safest possible way. To argue about unrelated issues, as we have heard from the Labor opposition, really misses the point of the legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions in this debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006, in particular Senator Chapman’s contribution, which I acknowledge was one of the better contributions in this debate. He has had a very long-standing interest in relation to these matters. Senator Chapman was talking about changes to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 to allow ANSTO to more effectively fulfil one of its statutory functions—namely, the provision of services in connection with conditioning and management of radioactive materials and radioactive waste.

I understand that Labor senators are supporting this bill and the government appreciates that support. It is disappointing that the Democrats and the Greens cannot show the same commitment to ensuring radioactive materials are safely managed in the event of an emergency. This bill provides clear authority for ANSTO to provide assistance to Commonwealth, state and territory emergency services and law enforcement agencies. Such a need could arise as a result of materials that come into possession of law enforcement agencies in the course of investigations or that are collected or seized following a terrorist or other radiological incident, whether malicious or accidental.

In its current form, the ANSTO Act effectively limits the assistance ANSTO can provide to emergency services and law enforcement agencies to the provision of verbal advice. The New South Wales Police, the Victorian police and the Australian Federal Police have all raised their concern with ANSTO that they do not have the appropriate facilities to manage radioactive material they may seize in the course of an investigation.

ANSTO is Australia’s nuclear science and technology organisation with practical day-to-day experience in managing and handling radioactive materials and wastes. It has operated its facilities safely and reliably for 49 years. ANSTO has both the infrastructure and qualified personnel capable of managing radioactive materials that might be seized by police or otherwise need to be dealt with in the event of a radiological incident.

Democrat senators have made the rather bizarre assertion that this bill opens the door for ANSTO to import and dispose of foreign nuclear waste. This assertion, as outlined by Senator Chapman, is completely incorrect. This bill, if passed, clarifies that ANSTO may manage waste arising from the conditioning or reprocessing of ANSTO spent fuel—that is, nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in a reactor operated by ANSTO. The other matters that have been raised throughout the debate do not need to be responded to other than to say that this bill clarifies the role that ANSTO can take in the management of radioactive materials and wastes on behalf of the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.