Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Bill I move today is to right a wrong committed by the Senate almost two decades ago to prevent the establishment of a nuclear fuel cycle in Australia.

Two decades ago Australia could have established a nuclear fuel cycle, particularly a nuclear energy sector that would, by now, have reached maturity. In particular, nuclear electricity generation could have provided the energy stability, affordability, security and sovereignty that Australia desperately needs.

Those who are concerned about the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the planet's atmosphere, and the various global efforts to reduce those emissions, also missed an opportunity two decades ago to curtail Australia's emissions by deploying nuclear energy. Nuclear energy results in less carbon dioxide emissions than the photovoltaic and wind generation sources preferred by those concerned about such emissions.

My home state of South Australia has an abundance of uranium which gives us a unique position in the world as a global uranium supplier. In the two decades since this Senate shut the door on a nuclear fuel cycle—followed by a succession of energy policy decisions by major parties—South Australian energy prices have risen to be among the highest in the world. Energy costs have been a significant determinant in the ongoing viability of manufacturing such as the automotive industry, which has now—regrettably—departed South Australia.

It is a painful exercise to consider whether the South Australian economic position would have been vastly different—and more positive—had this Senate made different decisions two decades ago.

This Bill does not, by any means, open up the nuclear fuel cycle to unregulated development by the private or public sector. Instead, it removes the automatic bans that the Senate inserted into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 to prevent any Ministerial or other approval of critical elements of the nuclear fuel cycle.

The Environment Minister will still have to consider applications to establish such facilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the Foreign Minister retains the power to decide whether or not to issue a permit for a proposed facility under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987.

The passage of this Bill will signal to the world that Australia is—at last—open for business, namely open to considering the evidence, the science, the environmental, employment and economic opportunities of the nuclear fuel cycle.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.