Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think everyone in the Senate would appreciate what an extremely responsible and proactive organisation we have and how lucky we are to have ANSTO as the primary vehicle for the knowledge and development of nuclear expertise in Australia. In the ANSTO annual report, the chairman, Dr Ziggy Switkowski writes:

On a wider scale, nuclear technology is gaining broad interest and acceptance for its potential role in mitigating climate change. Many countries in the world are moving forward with plans for significant numbers of new nuclear power reactors, recognising that nuclear power is the only, currently available, technology truly capable of providing base-load power without significant contributions to climate change emissions.

This would seem to be something of a self-evident truth. But is the minister responsible, our esteemed Senator the Hon. Kim Carr, listening to what Dr Switkowski is saying? Is the Prime Minister listening? Is anybody at all in the government listening to this? I think—sadly for Australia and sadly for the debate around climate change and the solutions to this—the answer is no.

Dr Switkowski in his foreword to the report also notes that our regional neighbours China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India and Pakistan already deploy nuclear power and that Indonesia and Vietnam are about to join that list. Does the Rudd government believe that all of these countries in our region are wrong, immoral short-sighted and reckless for embracing nuclear power? Dr Switkowski has also noted—and this comment has had some media coverage—that Australia is unique among the G20 in refusing to embrace the nuclear option. Out of the 20 nations, 15 rely on nuclear power and another four are building nuclear reactors as a means of addressing climate change.

The breathless hypocrisy of this government on the subject of nuclear power is just extraordinary. We have the world’s largest uranium reserves, about 23 per cent or almost one quarter. In 2008 we exported 10,707 tonnes of uranium to be used for energy generation, and the bulk of those exports went to the G20 nations. Our Prime Minister on 12 November said Australia and India were looking to the day when ‘India’s ambitious nuclear program could include Australian uranium.’ Last year we exported 3,689 tonnes of uranium to the USA, 3,000 more tonnes to the EU, 2,500 to Japan. We also sent uranium to China, South Korea, Canada and South Africa. So the Labor government’s official policy is that nuclear power for Australia is not on the agenda, because it is far too risky, far too dangerous, far too problematic, not to mention environmentally disastrous and immoral. However, it seems that none of these things apply in all those countries that we happily and profitably export our uranium to.

Dr Switkowski is on the public record saying that Australia could safely and affordably build 50 nuclear power stations by 2050, and therefore provide 90 per cent of Australia’s base-load power. If that were done, our carbon emissions, now standing at 1.4 per cent of the world’s total, would decline to less than one per cent. There is broad and universal public acceptance of the pragmatic, peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy developing not only across the world but in Australia. ANSTO is at the forefront of this as a proactive and responsible organisation. We could be an entirely self-sufficient country in the production of clean energy and have a robust export industry as well. The shame is that, despite universal acceptance, the government’s blind political dogma, hypocrisy and lack of courage on this is holding back any solutions for Australia and our climate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In following the remarks made by Senator Boyce, can I say that I find it utterly bizarre that we are in the process of debating a number of bills known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills and that we are not including any discussion of nuclear energy in this whole debate. It absolutely beggars belief that we can have these debates without talking about nuclear power.

Looking at the international experience, I think that 75 per cent of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power stations—75 per cent, possibly more. There are a number of nuclear power stations in the UK and I think the UK Labor government has just announced that they have decided to commission another 10. So why are we not talking about the big elephant in the room, as I referred to it during my contribution to the ETS debate this afternoon? Why are we not talking about the option? How, as Senator Boyce said, can we justify, with any intellectual rigour, exporting the raw product ourselves without looking at the potential outcome of the use of that raw product? It absolutely beggars belief.

I do not believe that there are not the numbers in the Labor Party who believe that we should have this debate and that we should do something about it. If you look at the potential global CO2 reductions which could be achieved by the widespread use of nuclear power, it beggars belief that we are not having a sensible discussion about it. It beggars belief that, at Copenhagen, there will not be a discussion about this very issue. You would think that the smartest brains in the world—who, apparently, will be at Copenhagen—would be able to come to some world agreement about storage of waste, about who is prepared to make contributions to the storage of waste and about the best place for the waste to be stored. These are the very discussions that should be taking place but if you are not prepared to move the elephant from the room and put it into the public debate and if you are not prepared to include nuclear as part of a global solution, then what an extraordinarily wasted opportunity it will be.

We talk about legacies. We talk about what we are going to leave to our kids, our grandkids and their kids. Surely, if we are going to leave them the sort of legacy that we can be proud of, we should put everything into the mix and put everything on the table. We do not allow the elephant to remain in the room, because while it is in the room it is ensuring that we do not have the sorts of outcomes that we should. I fully endorse the comments of Senator Boyce.

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

Can I also associate myself with the contribution made by Senator Boyce on this very fine Australian organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Like Senator Ronaldson, I am absolutely flabbergasted, given that this is what Mr Rudd calls ‘the greatest moral challenge of our generation’—the greenhouse gas emissions issue—that he will not even look at an alternative which would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Ronaldson rightly said that most European countries do indeed use nuclear power. I think that between 70 and 80 per cent of France’s power comes from nuclear energy. Yet in Australia, which has 23 per cent of the uranium reserves of the world, it is not even talked about.

I know the Labor Party is in abject turmoil over the uranium issue. I know that several leading members of the Rudd government sensibly believe that it should be in the equation, that it should be talked about and that we should look at it to see if it might address some of the alleged problems of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the Labor Party government—Mr Rudd in particular and Senator Wong—will not allow it to be spoken about. I know that, in my own home state of Queensland, the local Labor member for Mount Isa, Ms Betty Kiernan, sensibly believes that uranium should be talked about. I think she goes a bit further and says it should be mined and used. Indeed, her predecessor as the Labor member for the Mount Isa seat who became the Queensland Minister for Mines and Energy, Tony McGrady, is now, in his post-parliamentary life, a firm supporter of the use of uranium. He is in fact a lobbyist for the uranium industry. There are many other Labor figures. Fortunately Senator Ludwig is not here, but I think his father, Mr Bill Ludwig, who is a very important man in the Queensland labour movement and the Queensland union movement, is also one of those who think we should at least talk about it.

So we have a wide cross-section of people who are not saying, ‘Let’s build a uranium plant tomorrow,’ but are saying, ‘Let’s at least talk about it. Let’s at least consider whether it might be useful in addressing what Mr Rudd calls “the greatest moral challenge of our time.”’ It just proves the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this emissions trading scheme. Mr Rudd can wander the world showing his credentials, yet when it comes to a simple solution, which I think Senator Boyce said might have dropped something like half a per cent from Australia’s less than 1.4 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions, he just will not look at it.

I raised an issue about the Labor Party’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: if the bill we are debating went through as it is, it would mean a reduction from 1.4 per cent of world greenhouse gas emissions to 1.2 per cent—a reduction of 0.2 per cent in world greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, according to Senator Wong, that is going to save the Barrier Reef; it is going to stop firestorms; it is going to stop the cyclones; and it is going to put water back into the Murray-Darling—a 0.2 per cent reduction in world greenhouse gas emissions under the Rudd government’s CPRS and it is going to do all these things.

Yet here is a solution. ANSTO do not get into the policy issue, but they gave the facts at a recent Senate committee hearing I attended. Here is an opportunity to seriously address greenhouse gas emissions from Australia, but Mr Rudd and the Labor government simply will not even talk about it.

Congratulations to ANSTO on the work they do. They are a very professional organisation. They are an organisation of which all Australians should be, and I think most are, very proud. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.