Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

It is important that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency reports to the parliament. I am pleased to see the chief executive’s report for the period 1 October 2008 to 31 December 2008. We in Australia are all interested in radiation protection and nuclear safety.

This brings to my mind the question of nuclear energy and uranium. What I as a Queenslander am perplexed about is that in my state of Queensland the Labor government—and indeed this has a federal consequence as well—seems to be all over the ship on uranium issues. I raise this because the member for Mount Isa, Betty Kiernan, a Labor member, has said that she is very much in favour of uranium mining. I thought that it was Labor Party policy, both here and in the state of Queensland, to oppose uranium mining. I am aware that Mr Bill Ludwig, a very important man in the union movement in Queensland—he is from the AWU—and a person whose family tentacles reach even this august chamber, is also very supportive of uranium mining under certain circumstances. So I am confused as to what this is all about.

Those of us from Queensland would recall that the recent but one Labor minister for mines was Mr Tony McGrady. Mr McGrady was, prior to Ms Kiernan, the member for Mount Isa and a very important and influential person in the Labor Party. I understand that Tony, in his retirement, is now a lobbyist for the uranium industry. I understand that he totally supports not excluding uranium from the mix. I have heard other people say that, too. With climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, we have to look at all options—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, would you mind ceasing shouting across the chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Madam Acting Deputy President. I know that Senator Conroy is trying to stop me being heard by the people of Queensland who might have an interest in who is right in the Queensland Labor Party. Is it Ms Bligh, who seems to have the view that they are not going to do it, or is it Ms Kiernan, the Labor Party member for Mount Isa, who is saying that they should have a look at uranium? Or it Mr Tony McGrady, the previous Queensland mines minister, a very influential person in the Labor Party who would now—and I hope that I am not maligning him—describe himself as a lobbyist for those interests that believe that uranium mining should be in the mix? I only say this because I am confused about what the policy is.

I am also confused about Ms Bligh. She said that only she and the Queensland Treasurer are guaranteed their ministry positions after the election—assuming that the Queensland people are going to return her; do not worry about the election; she is going to win anyhow. But she said that only a couple of ministers can be sure of their portfolios. Ms Desley Boyle, the minister based in the seat of Cairns, was one of those who was clearly being pointed out to get the axe. But I see that Ms Bligh was up in Cairns just yesterday and Ms Boyle apparently had a few words to her and said: ‘Hey, I’m not going nowhere. And after the election, Ms Bligh, it could be you that is getting the axe, not me, Desley Boyle.’ This is all relevant to the report—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on two points of order, Madame Acting Deputy President. One is on relevance, because I am really not quite sure that this is relevant.

The Acting Deputy President:

That is not a point of order, Senator Conroy. What is your second point of order?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My second point of order is that Senator Macdonald is casting aspersions on and making commentary about members of other chambers. That is traditionally something that we have not allowed. He is imputing a number of motives to members in other chambers and making claims about them and I ask you to call him to order and return him to the topic.

The Acting Deputy President:

I just draw Senator Macdonald’s attention to standing order 193. I know he will take care with his remarks. Senator Macdonald, you have 27 seconds left.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am getting back to the report before the chamber, but, for Senator Conroy’s information, I am only reporting what the local press are saying. It is not my commentary; it is the commentary of people in the electorate of Cairns that Desley is not going to get the boot but Anna is going to be Premier. Anyhow, we will see on Saturday. This is an important report and I am pleased to draw the Senate’s attention to it.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to take note of the quarterly report of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA. This, of course, is one of Australia’s key nuclear safety bodies. It has responsibility for the sound management of our nuclear industry. Another key body is the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which is chaired by Mr Ziggy Switkowski, who I note is widely quoted in today and yesterday’s newspapers in relation to a speech on nuclear energy he gave in my home town of Adelaide. That speech is one of great import for this house, for this parliament and indeed for our country because it highlights once again the failure of the Labor Party to have an open mind and consider the full spectrum of potential solutions and responses to our climate change problems. Instead, this government is hell-bent on its own narrow-minded approach to addressing climate change issues rather than considering the nuclear response as one part of a fulsome response to the climate change challenges that Australia faces.

As a senator from South Australia, a state that is very dependent upon the mining industry and the mining resources of uranium, I believe that Australia needs to be doing much more to look at how we could make use, in a responsible, safe and appropriate manner, of those resources to provide us with lower cost, stable energy and baseload power into the future and simultaneously reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

In his comments yesterday, Mr Switkowski was, firstly, quite damning of the government’s approach, which seems to be wholly and solely targeted at the emissions trading scheme. He said:

… the emissions trading scheme is a very complex path to no place significant …

Instead, he talked about the potential and the opportunity for nuclear energy. He said:

… nuclear energy is too important and effective a source of clean energy to be ignored.

Unfortunately, that is what this government is doing—ignoring this important potential source of clean energy. He went on to say:

If we were serious about reducing emissions then we would put most of our resources into developing the technologies that would give us cleaner energy, driving more productive use of electricity by our appliances and certainly introducing nuclear power.

I hope one day to see a situation where Australia can rely wholly and solely on totally renewable energy sources. That would be a wonderful situation and I urge and encourage the government, as I have done in this place many times before, to continue to support and invest in the solar industry. I had representations just this week from Origin Energy about their new SLIVER solar photovoltaic cell product, which they hope to receive additional support to roll out to thousands of homes potentially. I urge the government to continue to go down the path of encouraging geothermal, wind and tidal power and all those other alternatives.

But, for today, nuclear is a known source of energy. The rest of the world uses it extensively. We export it to the rest of the world for them to use it extensively and yet we choose to ignore the potential that it has here in our own country. Mr Switkowski said that under certain scenarios that potential could see an 18 per cent reduction in the use of fossil fuels in Australia, which of course would represent a significant reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.

This government needs a clear and consistent policy on nuclear energy. It fails to have one. It fails to have one in relation to trade issues, where at present we see bizarre negotiations in situations where we are happy to consider selling uranium to China, we are not happy to sell it to India and yet we are keeping Russia—the chairman of whose upper house has been in the country recently posing questions on this matter—in a state of limbo, uncertain whether we are going to sell it to them or not. We need consistency from this government on climate change responses, which should include the potential of nuclear energy, and consistency on the trade of uranium. I urge the government to change its position. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.