RANN GOVERNMENT

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): My question is to the Premier. Now that the Premier has lost control of his party and has broken his previous pledge—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Isn't it extraordinary, Madam Speaker, that they make so much complaint—

Mr Pengilly: What's your point of order?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think it is No. 97; you have got to ask a question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: From memory, No. 97. That is plain debate, absolute debate. She cannot ask the question like that.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold that. I suggest that the leader reword her question or sit down.

Mrs REDMOND: I will reword it. Now that the Premier has broken his previous pledge of—and I quote—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order!

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, the Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Again, alleging breaking a pledge is a matter of debate.

An honourable member: What number?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. 97.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am a little bit reluctant to allow that point of order until I have heard the rest of the question.

Mrs REDMOND: The rest of the question, Madam Speaker, is: now that the Premier has broken his previous pledge of 'killing off any talk about a nuclear power plant', will he now sack his ministers or will he now resign?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:50): Breaking news.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I have an announcement to make.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Norwood for the second time.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The leader of the Liberal Party and the deputy leader of the Liberal Party—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order!

The Hon. M.D. Rann interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier!

The Hon. M.D. Rann interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier! The member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Premier might think so, but he is not above standing order 104. He is meant to address you and not the few people left in the state who listen to him.

The SPEAKER: I will uphold that because he was not listening to me.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: When I said before that I defended the Leader of the Opposition as being a people person, I said that—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. Premier, sit down.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I seek a ruling from you in the chair. Is he meant to address you? Please enforce the standing order.

The SPEAKER: I upheld your last point of order, member for Stuart. The Premier will return to answering the question.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Can I just say that in 2007 when I was vice-president of the Labor Party nationally before a historic interregnum as president of the federal Labor Party, at a time of great success for the federal party—

Ms Chapman: Not now.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Well, they're in government and you're not—just the same here. I have also seen your progress down the ranks and back to the backbench—a slow progression backwards. It reminds me of David Tonkin's historic saying when he was asked whether the state was going backwards, and he said, yes, but going backwards more slowly than he'd hoped. That may not be an exact quote but—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Can I just say this? In 2007, I went to the national conference of the Labor Party and, together with the former Labor leader Kevin Rudd, moved successfully to end a policy of the Labor Party that had existed for more than 30 years that banned any new uranium mines anywhere in Australia. We were successful in doing so; we were successful in ending a policy that would in fact have impeded growth and development in South Australia.

However, I can say this because I think that I am probably one of the few people in this chamber who has visited a uranium enrichment plant and a nuclear reactor and a fast-breeder reactor. In fact, I am prepared to reveal today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I am prepared to reveal today that I visited a uranium enrichment plant 32 years and two months ago in Capenhurst, which is near Chester in the north-west of Britain. It was a centrifuge enrichment plant, and I will talk about gaseous diffusion and centrifuge models for enrichment plants. You know that enrichment plants exist in a number of places in the world: in the United Kingdom; in the United States; I understand, in Brazil; in France—and I should know because I went to visit the nuclear industry there 32 years and two months ago; and also I think they have one in Libya. I am not sure whether it is still standing or operational, and they also have one, regrettably, in North Korea.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No-one has come to see me—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —suggesting that we establish an enrichment plant—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —in South Australia from the industry.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: No-one has suggested building a nuclear power plant in South Australia except the opposition. You want one here. They want one down in the southern suburbs. That is where they wanted it. They wanted it apparently down near the desalination plant. The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party—unlike the Liberal Party—is free to debate what it likes at its national conference, but my suspicion is that the national Labor Party conference in December is unlikely to endorse a change in policy. I will make a prediction now. I had to do the hard yards to get uranium mining going in this state.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I know, someone had to. For you it is just a 'mirage in the desert'; for us it is about jobs for the future, and that is why we got behind the mining industry in South Australia. However, I do not believe that we will see a nuclear power station here on my watch. I do not believe we will see a uranium enrichment plant here on my watch, or on anybody else's watch in this chamber. Let me explain the process because I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition has been to a hexafluoride plant, or to a centrifuge or gaseous diffusion plant—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —or that she has been to a fast breeder reactor. So, here we go: South Australia's uranium mines currently produce uranium oxide concentrate—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —as a precipitate of uranium oxide, often called yellowcake. Mining is the first step of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are controls on the export of Australian uranium.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for MacKillop.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: We want an answer to the question. The point of order is under standing order No. 98, relevance. The question was—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —is the Premier still of a mind to kill off debate, or has the Labor Party actually changed its position?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not uphold that point of order. I am not sure where you are coming from.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I am explaining it in detail because obviously—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —the questions are sincere, I would have thought. There are controls on the export of Australian uranium. Australia's uranium may be used only for peaceful non-explosive purposes such as the generation of electricity in nuclear reactors. Uranium enrichment is the third stage in the nuclear fuel cycle following mining and conversion. We will get on to conversion later, which is about the next step up which is to uranium hexafluoride, which from memory has about one atom of uranium and about nine of fluorine, but we will go into that in some detail.

Two enrichment processes are operating internationally on a commercial scale: the gaseous diffusion process and the centrifuge process. The main large commercial enrichment plants are in operation in France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the USA, Russia and, as I mentioned, I understand there was an attempt, maybe unsuccessful, to build one in Libya and there is one in North Korea.

From a nonproliferation standpoint, uranium enrichment is a sensitive technology needing to be the subject of tight international control. In addition to current federal government policy and national ALP policy, there are many barriers to adopting this technology in Australia—so, no, there is no change in policy and the national policy stands. Also, there are other issues: access to the technology, given concerns about nuclear—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, there is a point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Standing order No. 98 states:

In answering such a question, a Minister or other Member replies to the substance of the question...

I am still struggling with what this has to do with the substance of the question. The question was: is the Premier still of a mind—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —that he will kill off any debate about the nuclear industry—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —or do you now support it?

The SPEAKER: Order! You can sit down. I can understand what you are saying, but I believe that the Premier can answer the question any way he chooses. I do find this relevant to the question that was asked. He is explaining the process.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The parliament deserves substance—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: The parliament deserves the policy, the parliament deserves the detail. If you don't want detail, go and get yourselves another job, although I want to defend the shadow minister for health—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —who, as a veterinary surgeon, saved my daughter's axolotl. There are other issues such as access to technology, given concerns about nonproliferation; investment—where enrichment accounts for almost half the cost of nuclear fuel; substantial financial backing would have to come from the commercial users of the products, nuclear power generators for an enrichment plant to be financed; and, of course, also managing nuclear waste storage.

At this point we, as a state, should be focusing on the development of our mining industry and the jobs that this will bring to the mining companies, contractors and other firms in the mining supply chain. This includes, of course, uranium mining and the expansion of Olympic Dam. No one proposal has been submitted to me for establishing—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop! I warn the member for MacKillop.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —enrichment facilities in South Australia or, indeed, a nuclear power plant. So, I cannot see how a nuclear power plant would be viable, given that at least nine reactors in America at the moment are currently being deferred because they each cost—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —about $10 billion per reactor. It was seen as not being bankable by the rating agencies, but let's go on to more detail. South Australian uranium mines currently produce uranium oxide concentrate as a precipitate of uranium oxide U308, often called yellowcake. Australia's uranium may be used only for peaceful purposes. Naturally occurring uranium occurs primarily as two isotopes, U238 and U235, in the approximate proportions of 99.3 per cent to 0.7 per cent respectively. Some members were aware of that.

The production of energy in nuclear reactors is from the fission or splitting of the U235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. The U235 isotope is the main fissile isotope of uranium. Before the uranium can be used in one of the 443 commercial nuclear power reactors operating around the world, it must be enriched to the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —U235 isotope. The critical factor—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Leader of the Opposition will be quiet!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —in the ability of the uranium fuel to produce heat is the concentration of the U235 isotope, and U235 must be concentrated—

The SPEAKER: Premier, there is another point of order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: Again, the relevance question of standing order 98. The question I asked was specifically about the Premier killing off debate on the issue. We did not need a dissertation on the nature of nuclear energy.

The SPEAKER: I think, Leader of the Opposition, you also talked about policy changing. I am listening very carefully to the answer.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Speaker, that was not the question. I did not ask anything about the policy. I asked about the Premier's statement that he was going to kill any debate on the issue. That was the nature of my question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have consulted with the Clerk on this, in the process of this answer, and we are both feeling quite comfortable that the Premier can answer this the way he chooses and this is relevant to the question that was asked.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: This is for the record and for all time. There are people who will be watching Sky News at the weekend. The ratings of the South Australian parliamentary question—

Mrs REDMOND: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Premier just said this was for the record and for all time, so does that mean it is like when he put it on the record that he wrote a book called Uranium: Play it Safe, in which he decried—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —the development of Roxby Downs?

The SPEAKER: I don't think there is a point of order there, you were debating.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, there are 18 minutes left of question time. I hope you are not going to take all of those 18 minutes.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I also wrote a booklet on occupational health and safety reform, which was a bestseller, called Limbs, Lungs & Lives, not, as someone unfairly said, Limbs, Lungs and Livers—that was a misprint.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: After mining and before electricity generation, uranium processing to fuel rods involves three main separate steps. In sequence, these processes are conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication.

Now, let's talk about conversion because that is the missing link in this debate and there should be a debate about this. Uranium leaves the mine as the concentrate of a stable oxide known as U308. It still contains some impurities and, prior to enrichment, has to be further refined before being converted to uranium hexafluoride. So, you go up to conversion, you then go up to oxide, then to uranium hexafluoride.

Major commercial conversion plants are operating in America, France, Russia, Canada, UK and China. Now, conversion is a chemical process. After initial refining, uranium oxides are combined with hydrogen fluoride and fluorine to form uranium hexafluoride, or UF_6. The UF₆ is highly corrosive. When warm it is a gas suitable for use in the enrichment process. At lower temperature and under moderate pressure, the UF₆ can be liquefied.

The liquid is run into specially designed steel shipping cylinders which are thick walled and weigh over 15 tonnes when full. As it cools, the liquid UF₆ within the cylinder becomes a white crystalline solid and is shipped in this form. A conversion plant will be subject to similar regulations and requirements regarding siting and environmental and security management, as would apply at any chemical processing plant involving fluorine based—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I have just been reminded that the Leader of the Opposition probably read my book on uranium when she was a member of the Labor Party.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: It is obvious now that others are writing the Premier's gags.

The SPEAKER: No point of order. Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: What he wrote for the former leader, which brought the former leader down, but isn't it great—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I believe the Premier has accused me of producing documents and I ask him to withdraw.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: The Premier told this parliament that those documents ended up in my letterbox, of unknown sources, and he has now told the parliament that I produced it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: I insist that he withdraw and apologise.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, I have no idea what you said because I could not hear. Perhaps you would like to clarify the matter for the member for Unley.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It seems that, for the member for Unley, this isn't question time; it is confession time!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I would also ask the Premier—

The Hon. M.D. RANN: But the former leader and the member for Unley can sort it out—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: I ask that you rule that the Premier either withdraw his allegations and apologise—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot ask the member to withdraw his allegations because I do not know what the allegations are. I could not hear for the noise coming from your side.

Mr PISONI: The allegations were that I produced documents—

The SPEAKER: I will look at the Hansard later. You will sit down, member for Unley. I think you have finished answering your question, Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will sit down. I call the member for Bragg.