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

At the request of the Leader of the Australian Greens, pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bob Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate , namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 735.

I understand there will now be a debate for 30 minutes with five minutes allotted per speaker. I would like to say how shocked I am that a member of the government does not understand the current Australian legislation, especially since Senator Minchin, Senator Abetz—any number of government ministers—yesterday went to great lengths to reassure Australians that there was a ban on nuclear power stations and that there would need to be a change of the law. They tried to hose down the fact that all over the country people are worried that there is going to be a nuclear power station in their backyard.

Yesterday I indicated—and it is in the newspapers today—that the Greens will release a report today stating that the homes of all Australians are at risk because of what this government is doing. The Prime Minister is quite happy to allow people such as Hugh Morgan, Ron Walker and Robert de Crespigny to have insurance for their nuclear power facility, but all Australian homeowners have an exclusion clause in their home insurance stating, ‘Your house is not insured against damage from any accident or any explosion or any other thing at a nuclear power station.’ That means the homes of everyone around Lucas Heights are not insured at the moment. Now we find the government wants to run out with a report saying, ‘There will be 25 nuclear power stations around Australia.’ The Australia Institute has put out a list which considers the criteria. It includes Port Augusta, Townsville, Portland and the area all around Port Phillip Bay. What we do know from the Ziggy Switkowski report is that these power stations need to be sited within 100 kilometres of a built-up area and they will probably need to be on the coast because of water restrictions; nuclear power stations require a huge amount of water.

I thank Senator Watson for giving me this opportunity to stand up in the Senate and tell all Australians that their homes are not insured, and that they are not going to be insured under this government unless the government supports a private member’s bill, which the Greens are going to introduce, which makes it very clear that nuclear power facility operators will take absolute liability. That is what they have done everywhere else in the world where there are nuclear facilities. The US, Britain, Japan, Germany and the UK have all signed the Vienna Convention on Civilian Liability for Nuclear Damage because they recognise that nuclear damage will be nothing like the results of normal pollution and so on.

This government has not signed on to the Vienna Convention for Civilian Liability for Nuclear Damage. I ask every Australian to get out their house insurance policy today and check out the exclusion clause. They will find that the Prime Minister has put them in the situation where, if there is a nuclear accident, a nuclear explosion or whatever, they have no option but to take legal action. They will have to prove negligence against the operator. The Nuclear Energy Agency has said that it is inappropriate for civilians to have to do that. That is why other countries have signed on to the Vienna convention, the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and the joint protocol—so that this does not occur in their countries.

The government is very happy to run out its lines on nuclear power stations, but it is not happy to explain to Australians that they are totally vulnerable. Unlike Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan, for ordinary Australians the biggest asset they have is their home. They are going to find that their homes are not insured. This is an absolutely unacceptable situation. It is all very well to talk about interest rates. People out in the suburbs are going to be very focused not just on interest rates but also on the fact that the Prime Minister is happy to insure the rich against damage to their facility yet not happy to allow ordinary Australians to be insured against damage from his nuclear folly.

That is what this is—the Prime Minister’s nuclear folly, which does nothing about climate change. I am glad that those sceptics were here in Parliament House yesterday. Running along to support the sceptics and rubbing shoulders with them, we saw none other than members of parliament. We had Martin Ferguson, Dick Adams, Craig Emerson and Senator Minchin—the whole lot of them—rubbing shoulders with the sceptics, on the one hand supporting nuclear—(Time expired)

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Watson wanted clarification of the law as it stands in relation to nuclear power stations. The advice I have is that the current law does not allow the construction of nuclear power stations as such. The motion foreshadowed by Senator Milne is one which the government supports. It outlines the current position. I do not see a need to suspend standing orders, therefore, with the government supporting this motion. In the interests of conserving time, I suggest we dispose of this motion to suspend standing orders, move back to the agenda and vote on the substantive motion, which is motion No. 735, to be moved by Senator Milne. I foreshadow that the government will support that. But I understand Senator Watson wanted that clarification. He has received that clarification and on that basis would not deny formality.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us clarify this. To enable Senator Watson to withdraw his objection, Senator Milne would have to withdraw her motion of suspension, by leave.

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

No.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is not going to do that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever happens in terms of the procedures, which I am sure will be worked out eventually, I think it is appropriate that the opposition has the opportunity to put its views in the Hansard in relation to both the motion and the rather extraordinary position that Senator Watson, and now the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, support. I make it clear that the Labor Party’s intention is to support Senator Milne’s motion. We do not support the establishment of nuclear power facilities in Australia. The government are yet again demonstrating how divided they are on the issue of nuclear power in Australia. We have had two question times now where Senator Abetz refused—

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

It is a matter of clarification. You are pathetic.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chapman, will you rule out, as a senator for South Australia, supporting a nuclear facility in South Australia? Senator Minchin has refused to do so. You are refusing to do so. Senator Abetz refuses to rule out a facility being established in Tasmania. Now we have Senator Watson—against his party’s position, apparently, if Senator Ellison’s contribution is correct—saying, ‘We deny leave’—for a motion to be moved which simply endorses the existing law in Australia. The government is all over the place when it comes to nuclear power.

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

Senator Watson was seeking a clarification, and you know it. Tell the truth.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chapman, you can heckle all you like, but in this election year people will understand that one of the major parties is completely equivocal on nuclear power and has said, ‘We will not allow the establishment of nuclear power facilities in Australia.’

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

You just dissemble. You don’t tell the truth. You tell lies.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Chapman!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Chapman, which I think is probably unparliamentary.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chapman, withdraw that remark.

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

I withdraw, Mr President.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite Senator Chapman to indicate whether he is willing, as a South Australian senator, to rule out supporting the establishment of a nuclear power facility in his home state and I ask Senator Watson in which of the seats of Bass, Braddon, Denison, Franklin and Lyons he is happy to see a nuclear power facility established. Let us be clear. We have a government that does not know which way is up, does not know what it is doing on nuclear power and is entirely equivocal about it. The government clearly has people within its ranks who are quite happy to establish nuclear power facilities in various places in Australia.

Do you know what is really bad? The government are not prepared to come clean with the Australian public. They are not prepared to be honest and say: ‘Yes, we want to do it—and this is how we are going to do it. This is the process for consultation and this is the process for establishment.’ They have a go at us because, they say, we are shutting down the debate, but what do they want? They want a debate on their terms. They want to be able to debate it theoretically—to support nuclear power—but not have to front up to the Australian people and say where it is going to be and what the process for putting it in place will be.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that this motion be given priority because it was denied formality. I appreciate that Senator Watson was seeking clarification. I do not think any of us know every single detail of every piece of legislation and law that has been passed by this parliament, but I do think it is important to emphasise for the record that nuclear power stations are clearly illegal under current law. Indeed, for the benefit of those who are interested, I specifically refer them to sections 37J and 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, sections that were put in the legislation specifically as a result of the Democrats’ actions. Those sections quite clearly state:

The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of ...

(a)

a nuclear fuel fabrication plant;

(b)

a nuclear power plant;

(c)

an enrichment plant;

(d)

a reprocessing facility.

That is the law as things stand. It is an important and urgent matter to absolutely clarify this by way of a vote of the Senate precisely because of the confusion, particularly in government ranks, about what exactly the government’s position is on nuclear power stations. Are they just thinking about it? Are they just putting a review forward? Will they allow it down the track, potentially, if all these things stack up? Are they determined to do it and that is their policy? Or is it somewhere in between all those things? Or will it be that a nuclear power plant, reprocessing facility or enrichment plant is only okay if it is in someone else’s place or if we stick it in the Northern Territory like we did with the nuclear waste facility?

We do need to clarify the government’s position on these things beyond simply a reaffirmation of the current law which bans nuclear power stations. It is pleasing the government are at least affirming—or, according to Senator Ellison, endorsing—existing Australian law. It would be a bit of a problem if they did not endorse existing law. They can always put forward a proposal to change the law, and that is the key question mark. That will not be resolved by any vote here today from the government members, because it is quite clear that there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty in government ranks.

There is no confusion or uncertainty on the part of the Democrats, who have opposed this since our inception 30 years ago and have opposed uranium mining as well for 30 years. It has caused no confusion amongst the Labor Party or the Greens party. But this does also highlight an absolutely critical issue for the upcoming federal election, because the federal election is not just about whether Mr Rudd or Mr Howard will become Prime Minister after the election. It is quite clear that Mr Howard is hell-bent on advancing the nuclear industry in Australia and is hell-bent on enabling the construction of nuclear power stations. But the key point which this motion reaffirms and makes clear is that that would require a change in the law. It does not matter if Mr Howard gets back in as Prime Minister. He will still need to change the law to enable that to happen. There is all this talk of overriding the states. That could only happen if the existing law was changed, and the only way the existing law could be changed is if it is passed not just by Mr Howard’s echo chamber in the House of Representatives but by this Senate.

We need a clear indication from the government that they will not try to use their numbers to railroad through a change in the law on this matter before the election. We need the message to get out clearly to the Australian people, even those people in the community who may want to return a Howard government for a range of other reasons, that if they are against a nuclear power station being built in their backyard they have to ensure the Senate is taken off—

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

The old NIMBY principle is alive and well!

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you willing to support it being built in South Australia then?

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

We should have the debate.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you willing to support it?

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

We should have the debate and look at the evidence.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will not even make a clear-cut affirmation. It is a simple thing. Frankly, I do not want a nuclear power station built in anyone’s backyard. I do not want nuclear power stations built in Australia. I do not want nuclear processing facilities built in Australia. I do not want an enrichment plant built in Australia. Those are all illegal under current law. If people want the law to be protected from being changed, they need to get the Senate away from the control of the government at this coming election. That is a simple fact. Whoever they end up wanting to have as the party of government, their only hope of preventing a nuclear power station being built in Australia under a future Liberal government is if they remove the Senate from the control of the coalition, otherwise they are putting us at grave risk of the potential advance of the nuclear industry. That is why this debate is important, and that is why it is appropriate to suspend standing orders to ensure that this motion is put on the record, but it is also important to emphasise that this is a key reason why the Senate vote at the next election is just as important as who ends up being Prime Minister.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a shambles by the government. What a total shambles and meltdown we have got here today from a government that is supposed to be in control of this place. Senator Milne brings in a motion—

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

That is your typical dissembling attitude.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Embarrassed they might be, braying on the benches opposite. This is an extraordinary muck-up of business, but there is much more to be said about it. Senator Milne brings in a motion to back up the law which bans nuclear power stations in this country, and perhaps the most senior senator on the government benches, Senator Watson, says he wants clarification as to whether such a law exists.

When you get to the facts on this, it is a very big debating point. The Prime Minister has led the nation into a debate on nuclear power stations in the last six months, and friends of his have flagged to him a proposal to build the first nuclear power station. They have not yet said where, but it sounds like Port Augusta is head of the list. Geelong might be on it, Portland might be on it, and goodness knows where else. Senator Watson says, ‘Where is the law that bans nuclear power stations?’ It is in the Australian radiation protection act and in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, both of which were put forward and passed by this government. Senator Watson supported them here six years ago. Prime Minister Howard supported them six years ago. The debate was in here. And now we have the same government members who supported the ban on nuclear power stations just a few years ago saying, ‘Is there a ban on nuclear power stations?’

What goes on over there? Who has lost the plot? Prime Minister Howard apparently does not know that his government put a ban on nuclear power stations. Certainly Senator Minchin had to have it drawn to his attention by the Greens a month ago because he did not know. Here we have this debate led by the Prime Minister to do something which is illegal. Isn’t that incredible? The Prime Minister himself has put tens of thousands of dollars into the Switkowski report proposing to do something which is illegal in this country.

What are they going to do next? The proposal from the Prime Minister is that up to 25 nuclear power stations be built around Australia, totally contrary to his own laws. He is proposing something that is illegal, to be foisted on the Australian people. Why? Because the same Prime Minister for 10 years has been totally derelict in his duty to this nation and to its future in not addressing global heating and climate change. In fact, he has been making the scenario for the future much worse, much more economically damaging, much more environmentally disastrous, much more socially disruptive through his own negligence, through this government’s negligence.

This morning we have a complete shambles. I say to Senator Watson and other government members opposite: yes, nuclear power stations are illegal because you voted for it. It was your legislation that made it illegal, not once but twice. Do your homework. Come in here prepared. This topic has been put to the top of the national agenda by the Prime Minister, and members of his government do not understand it. They do not know their own history and they do not know that what the Prime Minister is proposing is, in effect, illegal in this country.

Having established that, the extraordinary thing is that we are about to have a vote in which the government endorses the ban on nuclear power stations, contrary to the Prime Minister wanting to have nuclear power stations. Let us see the absurdity of this.

To bring this farce to an end, I seek leave of the Senate so that Senator Watson can withdraw his opposition to formality for the motion and we can get on with the motion being put.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne has to withdraw her motion for suspension before Senator Watson can do so.

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

I seek leave of the Senate to withdraw the motion for the suspension of standing orders so that general business notice of motion No. 735 can be brought on, and I do so contingent upon being able to then move general business notice of motion No. 735 as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I withdraw my objection to the formality. I had the highest of motives in objecting. It is very important, before voting on issues in this place, that people are fully informed. I sought an opportunity to ensure that the motion was factually correct. It appears that it is factually correct. I apologise for the time it has taken of the Senate, but I reiterate that, when we vote on an issue, it is incumbent on every member of this house of review to be fully informed on that issue. It is indeed difficult because people specialise in certain aspects of legislation in this place and there is no way that every member could be fully across all the issues, as Senator Brown has suggested.