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

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, Senator Fifield and Senator Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance for discussion. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot, and Senator Fifield was unsuccessful and unlucky. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert:

Dear Mr President

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The implications of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and Australia's participation at the High Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security to be held on 22 September 2011 at the United Nations Headquarters.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for agreeing that there is in fact an urgent need to discuss the implications of the disaster in Japan and at this important meeting being held at the UN tomorrow. The issue on Japan's Pacific coast is ongoing. It is vastly worse than most people realise and it will be smouldering for decades. This is an appropriate time, just after the six-month anniversary, to be considering it.

As reported by the ABC today, 60 per cent of Japanese people surveyed want the Japanese government to rely less on nuclear energy. It is a stunning turnaround from the popularity of this technology. That is why 50,000 people took to the streets of Tokyo this week to demand the phase-out of nuclear energy in Japan. It is not difficult to understand why, given the extraordinary devastation visited on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, victims of radiation are calling for an end not just to nuclear weapons but to the civil nuclear industry. They know better than anyone. The Japanese have experienced this tragedy before. The majority of Japanese feel this way because they now know that 76 trillion becquerel of plutonium 239 have been released. This is a hideously dangerous radioactive isotope that the Japanese government thought had been contained. That figure was released on 6 June and is 23,000 times higher than had been previously announced by the Japanese government. The truth about this disaster still has not been told, even though it may have faded from the front pages of Australian newspapers.

The Japanese people also know that the IAEA and the Japanese government have done medical tests on children living in three towns near Fukushima. About 45 per cent of those surveyed—kids up to 15 years old—have had thyroid exposure to radioactive iodine. As we all know, radioactive iodine is something that children and babies are much more susceptible to. They are doing tests on products such as spinach, tea, milk and fish, hundreds of kilometres from the plant, that show them heavily contaminated with iodine and caesium. There are hot spots now all away across the north-east of Japan.

Something that senators probably did not know is that the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, announced a High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security on 11 May, a couple of months after the disaster. He said:

We have to reevaluate nuclear risks and nuclear safety in response to the disaster in Japan.

Indeed we do. He told reporters at the time:

This exercise will also need a serious global debate on broader issues, including assessment of the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear energy and stronger connections between nuclear safety, nuclear security and nuclear non-proliferation.

This is something the industry is very keen to not talk about at all. I understand the UNSG was visited by several governments after making these statements. What is called a 'demarche' took place, a coordinated diplomatic onslaught from countries heavily invested in nuclear power that do not want the disaster on Japan's Pacific coast to impact popular opinion or the fortunes of the industry in their countries. They were not happy that the SG wanted to have a dialogue on the costs and risks of nuclear power. Despite opposition to this meeting and the concerns of the secretary-general, on 16 September 2011 the secretary-general released the UN system-wide study on the implications of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. I indicated to the whips that I was going to seek leave to table this document, so I do so now.

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

Is leave granted?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before leave is denied, I should say that the whips were notified yesterday that I was proposing to seek leave to this document and another.

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

I am sorry, Senator Ludlam. Leave is not granted.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will check it.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might seek leave again towards the end of my speech, on a nod from the opposition.

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

That would be appropriate. Thank you.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Picking up on the tension between nuclear states and the UN Secretary-General, and fearing that the meeting might become imbalanced or even manipulated by the industry, non-government organisations and experts came together to provide analysis and country reports, including a report on Australia. The effort was coordinated by Ray Acheson, the Director of Reaching Critical Will, a great project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. They produced what is sometimes referred to as a 'shadow report', an alternative to the official report, to make sure, essentially, that updated information and evidence on the costs and risks of nuclear power are available. For the benefit of Senator Abetz and the opposition whip, I foreshadow that I will also seek leave to table that report later—so that is one report from the United Nations Secretary-General and one shadow report from the non-government organisations who pay very close regard to what is going on in those international fora. The title of the shadow report is Costs, risks, and myths of nuclear power.

The UN report includes inputs from 16 UN entities whose work is affected by the disaster at the Fukushima plant. Unfortunately, the IAEA was tasked with being the lead coordinating entity for the study. The IAEA, of course, is responsible for promoting the use of nuclear energy around the world. Having an organisation with such conflicted responsibilities coordinating the study resulted—I do not think any senators will be surprised—in the study being overwhelmingly and conclusively pro nuclear power. All the same, it does clearly acknowledge the severity of the disaster at Fukushima and the threat of international nuclear incidents elsewhere. It acknowledges the inadequacy of current threat assessments and mitigation planning, including risks from severe and unpredictable weather events related to climate change, which is very interesting. It acknowledges the lack of an agreed approach to facility decommissioning and high-level radioactive waste management. It acknowledges the weapons proliferation links related to nuclear power. All these are things that I doubt senators, particularly those on the conservative side—but I know they have got their allies in the ALP as well—would acknowledge, topics they do not want to understand: weapons proliferation and the threats posed by climate change to nuclear energy, which is something to ponder.

The study also cautions against the trend towards longer service lives of nuclear plants. The only thing I would want less than to live next to a nuclear plant would be to live next to one that had been running for 60 years, but of course the industry, which can no longer afford to build new ones in places like the United States and Western Europe is relicensing old facilities for an additional 20 years. These things will have been running for longer than the lives of any of the people operating them, in order to squeeze more of a profit out of clapped-out assets. I think it is a shocking risk to play like that with the lives of people in those communities and the surrounding areas and countries. The study says that plant extension:

… brings its own challenges, such as ensuring that safety margins remain adequate. The extension of the lives of existing nuclear plants and the expansion of nuclear power programs are also placing an increasing strain upon the limited human resources available to design, construct, maintain and operate nuclear facilities.

These cautions are being written by the international agency charged with promoting nuclear energy. It is a pretty lukewarm endorsement.

The UN study also insists that the environmental, social and economic consequences of major accidents must also be considered and included in decision-making processes to identify and consider such costs—precisely the kinds of risks that have been ignored around the world. This recommendation has been taken up in the shadow report by the NGOs, by Australia's Dave Sweeney and Dimity Hawkins, who between them have many, many years of experience in analysing this sector. The report says that since some states 'remain committed to developing or acquiring nuclear power', disaster risk analysis 'must therefore ensure that nuclear plants are built and operated safely and able to withstand any possible threat that could give rise to a radiation emergency'. Surely by now we know that such an assurance is not possible. Dr MV Ramana points out, in his chapter on nuclear safety: 'Catastrophic accidents are inevitable with nuclear power.' We have seen that now just in the limited period of time that these plants have been operating entire areas have been depopulated and turned into radiation sacrifice zones.

So what position will Australia take to the meeting in New York tomorrow? We have a strong interest in this. Nobody wants nuclear power in this country, apart from Ziggy Switkowski and a handful of others, but Australia has 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves and is a supplier of around 20 per cent of the global market, including to most of the world's nuclear weapon states. Ministers in both of the old parties obsess about uranium mining, despite it not being in our top 16 exports. The facts here in Australia are that Australian uranium mines have an absolutely miserable record. The BHP Olympic Dam mine that they are proposing to expand will create five cubic kilometres of radioactive tailings—a radioactive carcinogenic mountain range created by the expansion of one single project. The Ranger mine that senators will be aware of and have had a long association with has seen over 200 leaks, spills and licence breaches since it opened in 1981.

The meeting in New York tomorrow should be a thorough examination of the facts rather than assurances and glib assertions that deny the fact that the state of nuclear safety is as poor as its market prospects. That is why investors have deserted the sector. The meeting should not deny that the nuclear industry is rife with accidents, incidents and profound secrecy. It should not deny that nuclear power is a massive subsidy parasite that burns money far more efficiently than it burns uranium. I very much look forward to the contributions of other senators to this debate.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( The Tohoku Pacific earthquake struck in the western Pacific Ocean, 72 kilometres north-east of the Tohoku peninsula in Japan, at 2.46 pm on 11 March this year. It registered a magnitude of 9.0 on the Richter scale, making it the most powerful known earthquake to hit Japan since records began. The earthquake triggered very destructive tsunami waves of up to 40 metres high that in some cases travelled 10 kilometres inland. In addition to the extraordinarily tragic loss of over 15,000 lives, with thousands still missing, and the destruction of vital infrastructure, the tsunami breached the six-metre high seawall protecting the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, badly damaging the site.

The inundation of the site resulted in the automatic shutdown of three reactors; three other reactors were already shutdown due to maintenance at the time of the earthquake. Back-up diesel generators started emergency operation when power was lost but soon failed due to the damage that was caused by the tsunami. Back-up battery power with a limited life of eight to 24 hours was expended. That left the plant without vital power to operate the cooling pumps of the reactors. Of course, all senators know what happened next: three reactors had a partial meltdown, resulting in explosions and the release of harmful radiation.

The Fukushima accident, triggered by a natural disaster of such great magnitude, reaffirms the importance of continually reviewing and improving the level of nuclear safety internationally. It also highlights the importance of the work of organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency—it has the difficult acronym of IAEA; try saying that quickly!—as well as, here in Australia, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. As far as Australia goes, there is no choice. We must continue to work closely with other countries to strengthen nuclear safety and security and to promote international best practice. Simply put, the international community must work collaboratively to improve nuclear safety.

Since the Fukushima accident, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Secretary-General have been coordinating improvements in nuclear safety internationally. The Secretary-General's high-level meeting on nuclear safety and security, as we have heard from Senator Ludlam, is scheduled for tomorrow in New York. I think that is during the UN General Assembly leaders week. Also this week, the IAEA is holding its annual general conference in Vienna, where nuclear safety is a central theme.

In May this year, Australia's foreign minister, Mr Rudd, outlined a number of ways to increase international action on nuclear safety. He explained the need for greater international oversight of nuclear safety under IAEA auspices through countries operating nuclear power plants and other facilities concluding bilateral safety agreements with the IAEA and through expansion of the IAEA's inspection role to encompass nuclear safety auditing. Mr Rudd has also proposed: augmented cooperation on emergency response and consequence management, including through the IAEA appointing an independent panel of international experts who could analyse incidents and provide advice on dealing with them; encouraging industry to share in-house compliance techniques; and cooperation by Australia with potential new nuclear energy entrants in our region. Elaborating on that vision of the foreign minister's, Australia presented a nonpaper to the June IAEA ministerial conference articulating actions the international community could take to address gaps in the current safety arrangements. Those actions include    IAEA coordinated independent fact-finding and review missions into nuclear incidents, and IAEA coordinated nuclear safety missions, as well as better national reporting through the Convention on Nuclear Safety national reports.

I am pleased that Australia has contributed $100,000 to the IAEA for a study on marine impacts of radiation from the Fukushima power plant. I note that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, of which the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, Dr Carl-Magnus Larsson, is Australia's representative and vice-chair, is undertaking a program of work to address the source term, dispersion, deposition, health effects and environmental effects of the Fukushima accident, with a view to having an interim report produced in 2012—next year—and a final report available by 2013. I do think that it is beneficial to Australia that representatives of ARPANSA, ANSTO and ASNO are active members of the IAEA committees covering safety and security standards.

If the story of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant tells us anything, it is to reinforce in the most stark and tragic way how important nuclear safety is for all countries. The international community must continue to improve nuclear safety. It must learn the terrible lessons of the Fukushima accident and its aftermath. The High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety taking place tomorrow in New York is critical and I hope it will play a critical role in this important work. It is expected to endorse the Action Plan on Nuclear Safety that was conceived by the Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety as the basis for important future work in this area.

I do remain confident that the current Australian government will continue to play a leading role in promoting tangible measures to improve nuclear safety around the world.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tomorrow the United Nations will be hosting a discussion on nuclear safety and security at the initiative of the United Nations Secretary-General. In the UN jargon, this is a high-level meeting. The meeting has its genesis in the unfortunate events in Japan last year. In preparation for the meeting a system-wide study was undertaken on the implications of the Fukushima accident. A solid 43-page document was issued in relation to this on 16 August this year. As a result, participating countries have had over one month to study the document. Can I say as an aside that that is refreshing given that this government only provided a Senate committee with a few minutes in relation to Treasury modelling on carbon tax. I never thought that I would hear myself say, 'Look at the United Nations for due process and proper procedure,' but when it comes to that, with all its flaws, the United Nations clearly is way ahead of this Labor government.

In the document that was circulated, in plenty of time for tomorrow's discussion, I note a number of observations. First of all, amongst other things, the document acknowledges the contribution that safe and scientifically sound nuclear technologies make to the agriculture and food production industries. So the nuclear sector is vital to the world's food task. If we want to deal with action on poverty we need a sensible, balanced approach to nuclear power. Indeed, in paragraph 16 of the United Nations report of the Secretary-General, we are told:

Providing access to energy for the 2.4 billion people currently living in energy poverty is an important precondition for progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Then it goes on to say—and I want to stress this:

All—

I underline 'all'—

energy sources and technologies will be required to meet that enormous challenge. Nuclear power has been and will remain a significant contributor to meeting global energy needs.

Thus achieving the Millennium Development Goals in fighting poverty. Indeed, we could move on to paragraph 88 of the report where, in relation to climate change, it says:

… one of the benefits of nuclear power is its very low greenhouse gas emissions, which help reduce all risks associated with climate change.

So I would invite the Greens to take a more balanced approach, as indeed the United Nations have, in relation to the issues that the world confronts following the unfortunate events in Japan last year.

Interestingly, we have heard Senator Ludlam and others from the Greens condemn the nuclear industry, by saying it is a thing of the past and it is a dying industry. Indeed, Senator Ludlum said, 'Nuclear is a declining industry, it is a dying industry and there is no turning back,' and phrases of that nature. If you actually turn to the United Nations document that I have in front of me, you will see that paragraph 17 is very informative:

As of July 2011, some 440 nuclear power reactors were operating in 29 countries, with 65 new reactors under construction. Interest in nuclear power, although impacted by the accident at the Fukushima … nuclear power plant, remains high. Of the countries without nuclear power that before the accident had strongly indicated their intentions to proceed with nuclear power programmes, only a few have cancelled or revised their plans, but most have not.

That is the reality of the world situation. No matter how the Greens come into this debate and try to spin, that is the reality. Anything that relates to nuclear gets the Greens up in arms, gets them on the front foot and on the attack. So if we were to call the 'nuclear family' the 'natural family' I wonder whether the Greens would be somewhat more supportive of the more traditional family role model. But I digress.

Having taken that slight whack at the Australian Greens, I can indicate that the coalition does not have any opposition to the two documents that Senator Ludlam sought to have tabled. So, if the Greens were to renew their request through their next speaker, the coalition would not oppose that request.

We ask for a sensible debate in this country. We are willing to sell our uranium to other countries in the world but not use it ourselves for power production. Until we get bipartisanship support on that, I doubt it will happen in Australia. But it is the same attitude that the Labor Party takes to coal. We export our coal, without a tax, for other people to burn—that is morally okay—but we are not allowed to burn our own coal in Australia without putting a huge carbon tax on it, putting ourselves at a disadvantage. You really have to wonder about government policy on these matters. (Time expired)

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

Senator Ludlam, I now invite you to seek leave to table the documents.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thank the Senate and I thank Senator Abetz. I seek leave to table the two documents, as indicated in my speech.

Leave granted.

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

I rise today to congratulate Senator Ludlam on bringing this matter of public importance to the Senate, because very few Australians would be aware that there is a very high-level meeting on nuclear safety and security to be held tomorrow, 22 September, at the United Nations headquarters in response to a call by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, following the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. I am delighted that we have this opportunity to discuss the UN report. I congratulate, again, Senator Ludlam for tabling the report that will be discussed at that high-level meeting. I would urge senators to read the report and consider it.

Interestingly, earlier this year, on 18 April, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called for a global rethink of nuclear energy and safety. After the Fukushima disaster, people around the world began to really think about the implications of a major nuclear disaster. I note that, in recent days, the former Japanese Prime Minister came out saying that he sought advice in the early days after the disaster of what it would take if Tokyo, with its 30 million people, had to be evacuated. That is what he was grappling with in the first days after the disaster and has subsequently said that the power company involved was extremely unhelpful in providing the kinds of details that he needed to know in thinking about and making those kinds of plans. But think about it for a moment: imagine a situation in a developed country, such as Japan, where somebody has to think about moving 30 million people and what it would mean. As he said, it would mean that Japan would cease to exist and operate as a nation-state during a period where you are trying to manage that kind of disaster. It is worth actually considering that.

I note that Senator Abetz was very selective in the way that he responded to this matter. He noted, for example, in relation to food, that one of the UN agencies, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, did contribute in the section on agriculture and food security about the contribution of nuclear energy and nuclear technology for food security. But the report also recognised that a nuclear accident involving the release of radioactive material will result in:

… serious radioactive contamination of water, agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry productions as well as wildlife, thus posing a serious threat to veterinary and public health, food security and trade, with direct implications on the livelihoods of people.

So let us get that absolutely straight: a nuclear accident of this kind will lead to contamination and will have massive health and also food security impacts, as we have seen with the level of contamination of food in the immediate area of Fukushima. In relation to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, Senator Abetz quotes that the IAEA suggests that the provision of access to energy for the 2.4 billion people currently living in energy poverty is an important precondition for progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. We totally agree. Energy is important in delivering the Millennium Development Goals, but nuclear power is not the answer to doing that, because we are talking here about costs and risks, and in fact it is distributed energy produced by renewable energy that has a much greater opportunity and chance to be able to relieve poverty. I put it this way: in the UNDP report they note that sustainable development will require the cost per megawatt hour of electricity to be less than three per cent of per capita income. Since the majority of those in need of energy live in countries where annual per capita incomes are under $1,000, the need is for technological options in the range of $30-$50 per megawatt hour. With nuclear you are not going to get it anywhere under $100, if not more as we go into the greater risk parameters that you are going to have to pay for if you are going to try and develop nuclear energy. So what we should be doing is opposing the idea that you would try and drive nuclear energy, centralised systems requiring governments to underwrite them in terms of cost, posing difficulties for local communities. Instead, you would support Australian technology in thin film solar, for example, which is a new and exciting area of solar. It is now biodegradable and is entirely consistent with aspirations for providing energy to developing countries. We will see that Australian technology roll out over time and we going to see it make a big difference in the developing world.

On climate change, there is this ridiculous assertion that nuclear energy is required to address climate change. It is actually the opposite. In this report it states that the assumptions that need to be reviewed are regarding the types of accidents that are possible. The report says that an assessment of those accidents was way too modest and that they need to look at the possible effects of climate change in relation to nuclear energy. That is because nuclear cannot take the heat. We have seen right around the world in the last decade several occasions where nuclear reactors have had to be closed down because of extreme heat conditions, which will be increasing as the rate of climate change accelerates.

Let me give you a few examples. In July 2010 in Alabama we saw the shutdown of nuclear facilities to the point where it cost that energy agency or energy department $50 million, all of which had to be paid for by customers in Tennessee, when they had to close down the reactors because they could not cool them, there was no water to be able to do it, and also they could not dispose of the hot water into river systems which were already depleted. At about the same time we had exactly the same situation in Europe. For example, in the summer of 2003 during those record-breaking heatwaves millions of people across France and Italy suffered through extended power shortages after the French network of 19 nuclear power plants had to reduce their operations. Seventy per cent of France's electricity comes from nuclear power. Italy also purchases about a third of its electricity from French nuclear providers. During the heatwave those countries had to basically cut down on use and promote energy conservation. There were blackouts and the result was that many aged people, hospitals and so on experienced those blackouts, and it was appalling. That is why France is now one of the countries in Europe most rapidly embracing renewable energy technology, because they recognise that in extreme weather events nuclear is no good, the reactor has to be shut down.

So let us get this very straight: rather than being a solution to climate change, nuclear is actually significantly undermined by climate change. The coalition does not want to address climate change, but we are going to have more extreme weather events in Australia, more high-temperature days. It is completely unsuitable technology in this country. But I do want on the record that Senator Abetz reiterated that it is coalition policy to build nuclear reactors in Australia. He still has not said where he would build them—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true.

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

Senator Abetz said that. Just a few minutes ago he said that as far as he was concerned the Labor Party is not wanting to support nuclear reactors, clearly the Greens do not, and he was hoping that that would be rethought. It is coalition policy and Senator Abetz has made it clear. In the face of climate change, getting nuclear reactors is so ridiculous, and in face of the disaster that has been Fukushima it is strange that anybody could be talking about promoting nuclear energy. There we had Ziggy Switkowski doing just that. He did not go and stand outside Fukushima, though, did he, when he was busy talking about the low level of risk. He should have gone straight there if it were so low-level risk. But no, it is the Japanese people who are suffering because of this.

I hope that at this meeting in the United Nations tomorrow they will not only consider this but look at the IAEA and say that this organisation needs to split its responsibilities for looking at nuclear proliferation and for its promotion of nuclear as a technology. They need to split the regulatory authority from the promotion, and that is one of the very positive things that should come out of this meeting tomorrow.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to make a contribution to this debate I acknowledge that Senator Ludlam has had a longstanding and serious interest in, and opposition to, nuclear energy. He has not yet succumbed to the hysteria and hyperbole that we just heard from Senator Milne. Senator Milne was on about how nuclear was unreliable, and I can only presume that her endorsement of renewable energy has conveniently overlooked the fact that the recent high winds in the UK forced them to close down the wind farms there because they were at risk of collapse and catching on fire and actually overpowering the electricity grid. I also note that Senator Milne criticised Dr Switkowski for not standing in front of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan to make his announcements about the safety of nuclear energy. I also note that Senator Milne has not been standing in front of the geothermal technology company in South Australia, where one exploded recently. Let us call this for what it is. It is another scaremongering tactic by an extreme green movement that is seeking to exploit a tragic circumstance and a very dangerous circumstance—I will acknowledge that—for their own base ends. There is no doubt that what happened in Japan was bad. It was a disaster for the Japanese people but we have to look at the fact that this reactor was built on old technology—40-year-old technology. Clearly it was built in the wrong place and without due consideration of the earthquake risk and the tsunami risk that it was placed under. All of these things can be overcome if you can overcome an irrational fear of nuclear energy. But, of course, the Greens specialise in irrational fear to pursue equally irrational policy agendas. Senator Ludlam, as I said, has not quite succumbed to that as yet.

But the Greens clearly want a baseload power system built on the most unreliable of technologies, which is renewable energy technology. We know it is prohibitively expensive. We know that it will not provide for Australia's base power needs. And it is startling to hear Senator Milne defend the provision of electricity to people all over the world when the Greens and Senator Milne herself want to basically shut down our baseload power generation capacity in Australia. Make no mistake: this is part of the Greens policy agenda. They do not want to see any new coalmines. They do not want to see any more coal fired power stations. But this is only part of their extreme policy agenda.

Might I remind this Senate that Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, actually wanted and has previously called for a registration system for businesses based on the religious belief of their owners. This was rapidly removed from the Greens website, but I still have the press release. Senator Bob Brown wanted to have a register of businesses based on the religious belief of the owners. This is the same organisation that promotes and supports boycotts of businesses that do business with Israel or that are owned by Jewish business owners. This is an extreme agenda that is very damaging to Australia because it does not confront the reality.

We know that the hypocrisy of the Greens has been demonstrated over and over again. I remember when Senator Bob Brown was quoted as saying: 'People do not make large donations to political parties without having in mind favour in return.' I wonder what you get when you take the largest corporate political donation in the history of this country. There have been some suggestions—it is just a coincidence, we know—that when Senator Bob Brown rose and asked a number of questions in this place that were directly relevant to the business interests of that $1.6 million donor to the Greens, accusations of hypocrisy and accusations of conflict of interest could have been levelled. But, of course, the Greens washed their hands of it.

I mention these things because we need to put it in perspective: the Greens are an alarmist movement that will seek to trade and profit from human misery because that will suit their political agenda. Their agenda is, quite frankly, one that wants to reduce human kind to just another species amongst species. We are the same as rabbits and monkeys and anything else. Once again, that is in the Greens manifesto, which was written by Bob Brown and that man, Peter Singer, in 1996. It effectively equates humans with just about every other animal species. Little wonder they want to shut down the embracement of technology that can actually supply Australia's and the world's electricity needs in a manner that is consistent with the global desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They make no bones about that, notwithstanding what Senator Milne said.

Nuclear energy is one of the few low-emissions technologies that can provide baseload power. We know that. It has worked elsewhere in the world. Senator Milne in her rush to criticise nuclear power all over the world conveniently overlooked the fact that the nuclear industry in somewhere like France supplies a lot of western Europe with their electricity needs. Indeed, you would not have the opportunity to use as much electricity in places like Italy without France's provisions.

We need to be aware of what the real agenda is here. It is not about the national interest. It is not about Australia's interest or about provisioning, protecting, defending or preparing ourselves for the requirements of future generations. This is about pursuing an ideological agenda. The tragedy in Japan is simply part of that. It is no doubt a tragedy. It is something that we will have to learn from, but it is not the reason that we should shut the door to examining the application of nuclear energy and its respective benefits right around the world, and that includes here, in Australia.

Contrary to what the Senate has been told, it is not coalition policy to build nuclear power plants. We acknowledge that nuclear should be examined as a potential solution that is consistent with our desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but we cannot pursue this policy agenda without bipartisan agreement. Everyone acknowledges that. We know also that the Labor Party is not party to that agreement yet, because clearly the Greens tail is wagging the dog. Although, I do note that clear thinkers like Martin Ferguson MP have tried to put this on the ALP policy agenda. So I say to Australians: they should not succumb to this green— (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can endorse those comments of Senator Bernardi's that Minister Ferguson is a very clear thinker—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is one of yours.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he is not one of mine to be perfectly honest.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's one of Gavin's.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think he is one of Gavin's either.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's gone out on his own, has he?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has got his own set of friends, although Deputy President Marshall might be more informed than I am on the Balkanised ways of the Victorian Labor Party. But we are not here today to talk about that issue; that should be for another day. We are here today to talk about Senator Ludlam's MPI. The starting point might be to recall that, 25 years ago, we had the Chernobyl tragedy, which occurred in what was then part of the Soviet Union and is now the state of Ukraine. What we saw in March this year with Japan's Daiichi nuclear power plant in Fukushima reaffirmed the importance of sound nuclear emergency response mechanisms and the highest possible standards of nuclear safety.

I would particularly like to talk today about Australia's initial response to the Japanese disaster. In the immediate wake of the earthquake and tsunami, the Australian government responded extremely quickly to ensure the safety of Australians in Japan as well as to offer assistance to the Japanese government and, more particularly, the people of Japan. The Australian government, on behalf the Australian people, donated $10 million to the Australian Red Cross Japan and Pacific Disaster Appeal and provided very early and extensive support. Part of that support included a 72-person urban search-and-rescue team with two sniffer dogs, which was one of the first overseas teams on the ground in Japan. In addition, a 22-strong Defence team participated in Australia's response. We sent three Royal Australian Air Force C17 aircraft and airlifted a total of over 450 tonnes of cargo over 12 days to support the relief operation in Japan. Two of those RAAF C17 aircraft were also used to transport specialised pumping equipment from Perth to Japan, with Australian technicians who helped to set up the equipment and provide the training for using them to the Japanese technicians. The pumping equipment directly contributed to efforts to stabilise the situation at the Daiichi nuclear power plant.

One hundred and fifty Australia based and locally engaged staff provided consular support, and coordinated information and support with Japanese officials, through our embassy in Tokyo. Australia also deployed consular staff to Sendai as soon as it was possible after the tsunami. We were in fact the first team to be deployed in the area and the last to depart. In total, over 230 Australian officials served in Japan to provide consular services to Australians and to assist Japan with its very difficult recovery efforts.

The crisis centre at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and I have had some experience with them in recent times—received over 11,000 phone calls over the period of the crisis. The Australian government was able to confirm the safety of 5,239 Australians in Japan, including 417 in the tsunami and quake affected areas of the country. All the Australians of whom DFAT was aware were accounted for and, thankfully, there were no Australian casualties. So often, when these sorts of tragedies overseas occur, Australians are involved; but on this occasion, importantly, there were no Australian casualties suffered.

Australia is taking a very active role in the broader international action on nuclear safety. In terms of the broader implications of the Fukushima accident, the Australian government recognises the importance of the international community working collaboratively to improve nuclear safety through the promotion of best-practice standards. We just heard Senator Faulkner talk about some of these initiatives. They include, firstly, greater international oversight of nuclear safety, including through the bilateral safety agreements with the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and their nuclear safety auditing; secondly, better international coordination of emergency response and consequent management; thirdly, encouraging industry to share in-house safety standard compliance techniques; and, fourthly, cooperation from Australia with, potentially, new nuclear energy market entrants in our region.

There has been a meeting of the IAEA. They hosted a conference on nuclear safety that was held in Vienna in June. I know Senator Mark Bishop, who is in the chamber, has been to Vienna on at least one occasion. At this conference, we outlined several actions the international community could take to address gaps in current—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you waltz, Senator Bishop?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that was in a different country, Senator!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us more, Senator Farrell!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The paper that Australia presented to the conference in Vienna addressed what we considered to be gaps in safety arrangements and outlined actions to address them. These included independent fact-finding and review missions for nuclear incidents—again, to be coordinated by the IAEA; nuclear safety missions, also coordinated by the IAEA; and improved national reporting under the provisions of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. That IAEA meeting endorsed a vision for improvements in the form of a practical action plan on nuclear safety. That action plan incorporated a number of ideas advanced by Australia and our foreign minister for improving nuclear safety. Those included, firstly, the IAEA conducting fact-finding missions when nuclear accidents occur and publishing those results; secondly, an expansion of the IAEA's nuclear safety review role; and, thirdly, greater transparency by states in reporting their nuclear safety activities.

The High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security which Senator Siewert mentioned will be convened by the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, tomorrow in New York. Australia hopes that the meeting will formally endorse that action plan. Importantly, the action plan recognises that all countries have a stake in nuclear safety, whether or not they have nuclear programs of their own. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleagues have previously spoken about safety and the importance of ensuring that nuclear power plants have the appropriate safety mechanisms. I endorse those comments. I also endorse the comments that Senator Abetz made before me about the need to have a balanced consideration of this matter. Of course, we are all concerned about what happened and the disaster that happened at Fukushima as a consequence of the tsunami. But the other side of the equation is that nuclear power is the source of energy for millions of people around the world.

It does need to be a balanced debate, but balanced is certainly something the Greens are not. Senator Abetz mentioned the United Nations report and cited some statistics from it. It is clear that the Greens do not have a very balanced view as far as nuclear energy is concerned. Their policies are about a nuclear-free Australia. Indeed, they are about a nuclear-free world. One only has to look at their policies to see just how extreme they are. For example, they want to close the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Forget the probably millions of people in Australia who have had the benefits of nuclear medicine over time and the good things that the existence of that reactor has been able to provide to Australians on a daily basis. Forget all of this.

Let us look at some of these extreme policies of the Greens. We know about the formal alliance with the Gillard government and the influence of the Greens now that they have control and the balance of power in the Senate. Bob Brown is on the record about the agenda of the Greens and I quote—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, would you refer to Senator Brown as Senator Brown.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that. Senator Bob Brown is on the record about the agenda of the Greens. On 25 August 2008, he said:

The Greens are about re-creating Australia for the new century street by street, community by community, city by city.

The Greens want to transform Australia root and branch, not for the better but for the worse. Their goal stretches well beyond the introduction of a job-destroying economy-wide carbon tax that will push up prices and add further to the cost-of-living pressures under which Australian families are already struggling. Lindsay Tanner back in 2004 said:

We might have the Greens with the balance of power … and in order to form government Labor might have to do some of the mad things they want.

Let us have a look at some of those loony, loony policies.

In the economic policy from the Greens' radical agenda they talk about introducing road congestion taxes, means testing first homeowners grants, treating family trusts as companies and introducing death duties. In the energy sector they are opposed to the exploration, mining and export of uranium. They are opposed to the diesel fuel rebate. They are opposed to government funded research and development for geosequestration technology. They want to shut down existing coal mines and coal fired power stations. Imagine what the cost of this will be on ordinary Australians, who are already struggling to confront the increase in electricity prices that will be brought by a carbon tax. Imagine no new coal mines, no new coal fired power stations and no expansion of existing coal mines. It was interesting to hear Senator Abetz the other day say that Senator Bob Brown has become a convert. At the time of the Franklin dam he was happy to have a coal fired power station, but he has changed his mind since then.

Look at their other policies in the social and community area: legalising cannabis, supporting needle and syringe exchanges, banning junk food advertising, giving 16-year-olds the right to vote and changing the national flag. In education there is the classic: freezing private school funding. How can we get across Senator Rhiannon and her extreme BDS anti-Israel stance? There is their abolishing of private health insurance. The list goes on and on. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this discussion has expired.