Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation report for 2008-09. In doing so, I note the leadership of Dr Ziggy Switkowski, who is the chairman of that organisation. The issue of nuclear energy and the nuclear debate will not go away, as was noted in an article in the Australian on 25 February by Keith Orchison. He said that nuclear power is an issue that will not go away in Australia’s climate change policy debate. Mr Rudd has a closed mind. He has said no, categorically. If he were genuine in his response to the climate change agenda, as he calls it, and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he would consider it as an option. It is desirous, as our leader Mr Abbott has said, that there be a bipartisan approach on an issue such as this, but clearly there is action and support for nuclear energy—Australia is a very significant uranium producer—and it is an obvious route, in my view, to greener pastures.

Australia stands alone among the 25 top world economies in excluding the use of nuclear energy, despite the government’s hypocritical willingness to export uranium, of which we have an estimated 40 per cent of the world’s supply, to assist in the production of nuclear energy around the world. We are happy to do that on the one hand but on the other we are categorically saying no to nuclear power in this country. Fifty-six countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors, and a further 220 reactors are used to power ships and submarines. There are 436 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, providing about 15 per cent of the world’s electricity as continuous reliable baseload power, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Some 16 countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three-quarters of its power from nuclear energy and the United States almost one-fifth. In recent weeks, President Obama made a speech indicating strong support by the US government for growing nuclear power as an energy source for that country. Towards the end of last year, the UK announced very significant developments. They are planning for about 10 nuclear power stations. So it is clearly on the agenda of the major industrialised countries around the world.

I note also in this article of 25 February in the Australian that ANSTO told the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy last year that, with national power demand rising by two per cent a year and 93 per cent of electricity currently coming from fossil fuels, the problem was so serious that all technologies should be under active consideration. I think they should be. The report also notes that total national annual demand today is 252,000 gigawatt hours and is projected by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics to exceed 400,000 gigawatt hours in 2030.

It is heading our way. We need to have a long-term view—a 2020 vision. Leaving nuclear energy on the table to consider as an option is sensible. Obviously, it must be subject to appropriate safety and health conditions. My views were set out in an opinion piece in the Mercury towards the end of November last year. I think it should definitely be considered as an option. The Rudd government says it is serious about what it calls ‘climate change’ and greenhouse gas emissions, yet it is totally dismissive of considering this as a serious option for the future. That is hypocritical in the extreme. We have uranium as a resource and we are happy to export it overseas to all these other countries that use it for their purposes, but Australia stands alone amongst the 25 major developed countries of the world. I draw that to the attention of the Senate and of the public.

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

I also want to talk to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation report for 2008-09 and also refer to the report in the Australian. I congratulate Keith Orchison on his article. I think my colleague Senator Barnett, because of time, omitted another quote from ANSTO at the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy last year.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A very good committee.

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

A very good committee, indeed. ANSTO said:

Australia’s energy security from a trade and economic point of view will be severely compromised if nuclear energy is not actively considered.

Why is it that President Obama, who I think on anyone’s description would be viewed as politically to the left of politics—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That might not be my description!

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

I think he is an old leftie, like my good friend over there. Even an old leftie in the US, the President of the United States—this is very important—the head of the most powerful country in this world whose politics are to the Left, the same as Senator Marshall’s, expressed support, in his state of the union address, for ‘building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country’. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of Peter Cosgrove, who was also quoted in Keith Orchison’s article. General Cosgrove said:

It is almost immoral for this country to export uranium to less technologically advanced and stable nations while refusing to have a nuclear power station here. We are a rich and technologically advanced nation, sitting in a geologically stable continent, so surely we can build and safely operate a nuclear power station.

Why is it that the Prime Minister of this country refuses, point blank, to discuss this matter? I do not understand why he will not engage in a public debate.

Senator Marshall, for all your philosophical sins, you are at least prepared to debate matters. I do not imagine that you and the others in the Left are demanding of the Prime Minister that this not be talked about. I cannot believe that would be the situation, because people like you are intelligent men. So what is it that is stopping us having this debate? I look at the people in the gallery and I say: why are we not prepared to have a community debate about this matter? Why are we not prepared to build some parameters around the debate so we can engage the community? What greater obligation have we got in this place and the other place than to talk about these long-term issues? How can you talk about climate change and the risks of climate change without talking about alternative energy sources? How can you possibly do that, particularly when, as my colleague said, you look around the world and see what is being done elsewhere?

Around the world, there are people who are actually prepared to invest in this technology, who realise that if global warming and climate change are a real issue then you have got to have some real solutions and nuclear must be part of those solutions. Surely between us we can build a potential regulatory framework which will instil some confidence in the Australian people. I readily acknowledge that this is a community perception issue, but surely, as law-makers and opinion drivers, we have a responsibility to put in place some appropriate community discussion that is above politics but will give this important issue the legitimate policy consideration and debate it deserves. Quite frankly, we would be absolutely derelict in our responsibility to our kids and grandkids if we did not have a sensible, bipartisan debate in relation to this matter.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in response to comments by Senator Barnett, a fellow Tasmanian senator, who is espousing the concept that we look towards a nuclear future in this debate on the motion to take note of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation report for 2008-09. Senator Barnett has also this week been championing the issue of a wind farm in the north-east Tasmania, as indeed I do. He has been criticising measures which might jeopardise the chances for that in the future. I am not sure how those two positions are entirely consistent. We have a very efficient hydro-electric system in Tasmania. Hydro-electricity is one of the best methods of generating electricity renewably and without pollution. We are also trying to develop a strong wind power resource. Wind and dam power operate well hand in hand. When the wind is blowing, you get power and, when it is not blowing, you do not. A dam is like a battery: if you turn the water off, if it stops running through the turbines, you stop generating; if you turn the water on, if water runs through the turbines, you start generating. There is a synergy between those two technologies. We have also got at the moment a significant proposal to explore thermal resources and the suggestion that Tasmania will produce a significant amount of thermal energy from superheated granite within the Tasmanian landmass.

With all that, why would a Tasmanian senator want to go the next step and say, ‘Perhaps we should have nuclear power as well’? Won’t that threaten the viability of those other energy sources? And I am not sure how one can sell the concept that Tasmania is clean and green and nuclear, because that is effectively what Senator Barnett is proposing. I do not think you can, as a representative here, impose nuclear power generation on the rest of the country without accepting that there would ultimately be nuclear power generation in your home state. Some years ago, then Senator Ray—I think he was a senator at the time—floated the idea that Flinders Island should become the location for a nuclear power plant. I do not think the residents of Flinders Island have ever embraced that concept. Similarly, I do not think that any of the residents anywhere in Tasmania would, given the clean energy options we have, embrace the concept of nuclear power.

It is incumbent on those opposite, when they are talking about this, to demonstrate that the Australian public is prepared to accept it. We have arguments about nuclear waste dumps every time there is a proposal to establish one. Establishing a nuclear reactor in any part of Australia will be controversial, but, if a senator comes here and talks about the issue, he or she should be confident in saying that he or she would be happy to have nuclear power generation occur in their own electorate. I am not. If Senator Barnett is, he should say so.

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

I seek leave to continue my remarks later on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation report for 2008-09.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.