Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on Findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:58): I move:

That the final report of the committee be noted.

On 18 May last year (2016), a motion was passed in the House of Assembly to establish a joint committee to consider the findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, specifically considering the establishment of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia.

It was my privilege to chair the nuclear fuel cycle committee and inform myself on what I consider to be the most unique opportunity for economic growth and stability for South Australia. I thank the committee members: Ms Annabel Digance MP, the Hon. Tom Kenyon MP, the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, and Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP, for their efforts in considering this matter, and of course the committee secretary, Mr Guy Dickson, who did an outstanding job, and the research officers, who have all contributed greatly to the preparation of the final report tabled yesterday.

Prior to the commencement of the committee I was somewhat ambivalent and, frankly, uninformed about this issue and towards the debate around nuclear fuel, whether it be the storage of spent fuel or the use of nuclear energy as a whole.

However, after considering the evidence that was given to the committee, the nuclear fuel cycle royal commission report, conducting research and having conversations with international delegates during our committee visits, the Australian Conservatives have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of South Australia that our discussion around a nuclear fuel repository and the potential for nuclear energy should continue. I stress that these are not positions that we say we should definitely proceed and do. We say that we should further explore these opportunities.

The nuclear fuel cycle is an often misunderstood area in our society, and I do believe that, with appropriate education and genuine two-way communication about storage, transport and energy generation, a more robust understanding of the benefits of being involved in the nuclear fuel cycle will be realised. As members would no doubt be aware, I was the only member of the committee to come to the conclusion that we should further continue our investigation of this issue, particularly with respect to developing a nuclear waste repository. All other members of the committee came to the view that we should no longer proceed.

Currently, South Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle is limited, of course, to mining and the sale of uranium. We do not produce intermediate or high-level nuclear waste, which means that we have no legal obligations to store waste. That being said, our unique political and geographical landscapes do present the potential to capitalise on this lucrative industry, in our view. The royal commission report has highlighted the potential economic benefit to South Australia in developing a nuclear waste repository as being more than $100 billion, or in excess of that over the life of the project. In other words, a spent fuel repository could bring in something in the order of $5 billion of revenue each year for the first 30 years of its operation.

The royal commission also suggested that accumulating all operating profits in a state wealth fund and annually reinvesting half of the generated interest could lead to a fund worth something in the order of $445 billion in current dollar terms over a 70-year period. These are indeed extraordinary figures. It was estimated that the gross state product would be increased by a significant 4.7 per cent by 2029-30, adding an additional $6.7 billion into the economy and creating approximately 9,600 jobs. This would also add approximately $3,000 per person to the gross state income.

South Australia is in uncertain times. Our industries in what may be termed traditional manufacturing have closed; indeed, Holden closes just this week. Large manufacturers cannot continue in our state, or indeed to be fair probably across our nation in many cases, because of rising power prices and other overhead costs that they face on a daily basis. We are failing to attract new business enterprises, not only to South Australia but to our nation. On top of that, in South Australia we have an unemployment rate that seems reticent to move, although there has been some improvement in recent times.

For all these reasons, at least keeping the option for future investment in the nuclear fuel cycle industry open, in our view, is not only prudent but necessary in order to provide an opportunity for our economy to grow and prosper. As I outlined just a moment ago, some of these figures are extraordinary amounts of money and I guess in the vernacular may be considered gamechangers for our state economy.

We have a unique opportunity in the present climate. Currently, the Asia-Pacific region accounts for one quarter of the world's installed nuclear power. Both China and India will be growth drivers in the energy market, in particular in nuclear energy over the coming years. China has set its target to achieve the most ambitious nuclear power program in the world, with 17 operational nuclear reactors at the moment and another 25 under construction. Vietnam currently intends to build 10 nuclear reactors by 2030, and it is highly likely that Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines will follow suit.

With our relative proximity to these emerging markets, it makes sense that South Australia would consider how we may be part of this growing industry. They are, after all, in geographic terms, relatively speaking, on our doorstep. Even if we were not able to share a part of this growing Asia-Pacific industry, there are currently more than 390,000 tonnes of spent fuel rods and nuclear waste in temporary storage around the world, and that amount will grow significantly as the nuclear industry grows. It is estimated that by 2030 there will be some 400,000 tonnes of spent fuel accumulated globally. I believe this to be a conservative estimate. A small percentage of this fuel may be reprocessed. However, despite reprocessing and changing technology in that area, the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that the waste fuel problem will increase by more than a factor of two between now and 2050. The opportunity is indeed enormous.

Notably, the royal commission estimated that a nuclear waste storage facility would be profitable even if South Australia only secured 25 per cent of the accessible market share, which I have said is ever-growing. While some questions have to be raised about the validity of the market share conclusion of the royal commission—and I think they are reasonable questions—sufficient facts regarding the potential economic benefits for South Australia exist to warrant further investigation to determine the viability of a waste disposal facility in South Australia. The potential for economic growth is too great to simply dismiss this opportunity or ignore it, in our view.

It is, of course, imperative that we consider the safety of both the transport and storage of spent nuclear fuel to ensure that South Australians are in no way jeopardised in our efforts to better the economy. The economy should not trump our safety and security. The evidence provided to the royal commission and the committee regarding safety was compelling, in our view, and indicated that safe transport and storage procedures that have been employed successfully in international locations already exist. There is no reason why we could not duplicate these methods and successfully manage any risks that may arise.

There are, of course, further details around this issue that need to be fully explored, but we are confident that, with the existing technology, this can indeed be done safely. Indeed, in terms of safe storage, there appears to be a near consensus at the scientific level supporting disposal of fuel via deep geological facilities—of course, this was the main focus of our investigation. During his appearance at the committee hearings, Commissioner Scarce reported that there was no possibility of a Chernobyl or Fukishima-type event occurring out of this project, as appropriate oversights exist. To put it simply: we are not talking about a nuclear reactor.

Coupled with careful planning of location to ensure the natural environment benefits, the storage requirement of the repository is appropriate cooling to enable satisfactory breakdown of the transuranium elements. Deep geological disposal combines safety aspects through engineered barriers that are constructed to isolate and contain nuclear waste as well as geological benefits within the region, such as limited or no recorded seismic activity and impermeable soil, which limits damage to, or leakage from, a deep geological disposal site.

The conclusive evidence, as far as the Australian Conservatives are concerned, is that these storage options are safe. They are low risk and therefore feasible for South Australia to continue to explore. Again, I stress that it is not our view that we should rush headlong into this project, but merely that we should continue to explore it as a viable proposition. It has been reported that the geological stability in South Australia is matched only by China and South Africa. However, we enjoy a political stability that our competitors do not. Australia is also a politically acceptable end destination for some countries to send waste: countries that were put to the committee included Taiwan, South Korea and, perhaps somewhat more contentiously, China, Russia and some others.

This provides South Australia with the unique opportunity to capture an unrivalled waste storage market. As I said, it was generally agreed that we have the geological conditions and also the stability in a political sense, which, of course, is so important in these matters. I was initially concerned about the potential dangers in transporting waste, as any reasonable person would be. However, after familiarising myself with the safety testing procedures that occur prior to transport, I am satisfied that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to cause a toxic waste spillage during the transport. The committee's work verified this, in our view.

Extensive research and development goes into storage containers prior to the transportation of any of these materials, of course. The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) gave evidence to the committee that engineers actually crashed trains carrying containers into concrete barriers, sent jet-propelled trucks travelling at over 1,000 km/h hour into the containers, set them on fire and dropped them from heights with still no breakage recorded. This is quite extraordinary when you think about it and certainly speaks to the level of safety that is addressed in the transport and storage of spent nuclear fuel. I must say, just at a layperson's level, I found the sorts of tests that are undertaken to demonstrate safety in these matters quite impressive.

To further our conclusion of the safety of the transportation, SACOME stated that the risks would be negligible. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) gave evidence that in over 20,000 shipments no accidents led to the release of radioactive materials into the environment. This is a significant number of shipments, obviously, and if there were issues in transportation safety, we believe it is not unreasonable to expect that they would have been seen by now.

The evidence regarding the safety of storage and transportation of nuclear waste is compelling, in our view. The concerns around safety can be managed. Everything is a risk. It is a risk to cross the street. This project will increase job prospects for South Australia and may actually stop so many of our young people moving interstate for well-paid careers. We would be remiss, in our view, to ignore this opportunity, especially when there is evidence to suggest high safety standards and significant financial benefit to our state.

One of the issues raised in various conversations about the nuclear fuel cycle is the community concern regarding the implementation of a waste storage facility. That is, some people, to put it simply, may feel they do not want something like this 'in their backyard'. This is a genuine issue, which would need to be effectively addressed. I read with interest an analysis of the Citizens' Jury Two report which suggested that there was insufficient information to support a yes vote, if you like, for proceeding with the nuclear fuel process or further investigation. That in and of itself does not indicate a definite no to further investigation, in our view, of the option for a nuclear fuel repository or a nuclear fuel industry in South Australia.

What this strongly suggests, though, is that to date there has not been enough information provided to the community in terms which are easily adopted to accurately determine whether this is something the South Australian people would support or not. Ultimately, in our view, it should be a decision of the people.

Of particular interest, it has been reported that a government-conducted statewide survey inquiring as to the potential for a spent nuclear fuel repository in South Australia suggested that 43 per cent of people supported or strongly supported a nuclear waste disposal facility and 20 per cent were undecided. Those numbers are significant and should not be dismissed lightly, as it suggests the potential—I acknowledge the potential only—for up to 63 per cent of people to support this proposition.

What it indicates is that there is a need to further educate the people of South Australia about this opportunity via widespread conversation and engagement and, once that is done, to then gauge whether there is the social and community support to proceed with implementing a nuclear industry in South Australia. Quite simply, in matters such as this, the community must be involved and must grant its consent, if you like, in order for these matters to proceed.

Further to this point, the lack of consent with Aboriginal communities of South Australia has been raised as a key issue preventing support of the proposal and, in our view, warrants further consideration. But I noted with great interest the submission of Keith Thomas, the chief executive officer of SA Native Title Services, who stated that, despite a long history of opposition to the nuclear industry in South Australia by Indigenous South Australians, there was the potential of majority support, in his view.

This submission further supports our view that we should continue to engage in a meaningful discussion regarding the viability of a nuclear industry to ensure that the appropriate level of information is presented to the South Australian community, and not simply a limited audience, before we dismiss the idea in its infancy. It is, of course, possible that with further education the community will still not want these facilities; however, due to the community and economic benefits this technology offers, in our view it is imperative that we continue with further dialogue and investigation.

One issue raised by the citizens' jury was their concern over the potential to damage our so-called clean, green image. Of course, as was noted widely in the media at the time, Lindt chocolates were distributed at one of the meetings of the citizens' jury, and then it was divulged that the Lindt chocolate factory that produced the very chocolates that the individuals of the citizens' jury were consuming was actually a factory which is very close to a nuclear reactor. There was no concern, of course, amongst the members of jury in accepting the Lindt chocolates. Indeed, I am sure all members of this chamber and those listening have had one or two Lindt chocolates over their lifetime, so far without ill effect, except maybe a little too much around the tummy.

Similarly, whilst we were travelling with the committee, we stopped in the famous Champagne area in France, a world-renowned region, of course, and indeed the only region of the world that can use the word 'champagne' to promote its products. It may surprise some members and those listening to learn that this is actually situated in very close proximity to a nuclear reactor. Again, there are no concerns about the produce from the Champagne region—or certainly I have never heard any.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: It doesn’t bring the prices down.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It does not bring the prices down—that is a good point from the Hon. Ms Gago. The sale of champagne, just like the sale of Lindt chocolate, regardless of their close proximity to nuclear facilities, has apparently not been impacted by this technology. One could infer, naturally, that the sale of our products and our image would also not be affected. That said, I do not wish to downplay that as a genuine concern. We believe that issue would need to be addressed satisfactorily but if we look to the examples overseas, I think it provides a great deal of comfort that such, if you like, internationally renowned brands like Lindt, and I would say especially champagne, are regarded as very high-level, if you like, desirable products, despite the fact that they are very close indeed, in some cases extremely close, to nuclear facilities.

I noted with interest an article co-written by Barry Brook, a professor of climate science, and Ben Heard a doctoral student, both from the University of Adelaide. It stated:

Radioactive waste is not automatically more hazardous than other waste. Indeed, it is demonstrably less hazardous than the organo-chlorine pesticides, poly-chlorinated biphenyls and heavy metal mixtures that also feature in Australia’s hazardous waste portfolio.

This suggests, and I think clearly says that nuclear waste is not so much the issue as the perception of nuclear waste, or certainly I think one could create that case. We have significant and dangerous wastes in our community which are effectively managed, just like nuclear waste could be, in our view.

The reality is that we have nuclear waste already existing in our community; albeit, to be fair, low-level waste in our hospitals predominantly, and maybe some medium-level waste. Some of this even exists in the Adelaide CBD. We store it on premises because there are not sufficient storage facilities in South Australia or elsewhere. We, as a nation, create medical waste which at times has to be shipped off to France for reprocessing which, in our view, is absurd when we have the potential to do that here. Of course, we understand the federal government is moving in that direction to create storage for low and potentially medium-level waste.

Currently, we are only involved in the first phase of the nuclear cycle as a community and that is, of course, in the mining of uranium. However, in our view (the Australian Conservatives’ view) we are missing out on the wider and, indeed, more lucrative industries, being waste storage and possibly—although this is somewhat contentious, obviously—even nuclear power generation. I draw the chamber’s attention to the fact that the royal commission did not rule out the potential for nuclear power in our future. The first and foremost issue regarding nuclear power, of course, is that of cost.

This is an unscientific example, I confess, but I will give more scientific documentation in a moment. In our travels, I had a discussion with a French delegate during our overseas visit to his beautiful country, and I asked him how much his power bill was. His monthly power bill, with a family comparable to mine in terms of numbers in the family, was approximately one-tenth of what we are charged in South Australia.

The main reason their power bills are so low, of course, is that they use nuclear power as the predominant source of power in the nation. The contrast is that, of course, in South Australia we rely on other types of power. We have some of the highest power prices in the world. Although I understand we no longer have the absolute highest, we are still in the very high range. Of course, we also have reliability issues in our system that I think are becoming increasingly well known. We have considered the cost of various energy sources and the figures are quite conclusive.

The Institute of Energy Research in America has said that nuclear power has the lowest energy production costs, at 2.1¢ per kilowatt hour, compared to coal at 3.23¢ per kilowatt hour, and natural gas at 4.51¢ per kilowatt hour. The cost of nuclear power in this example is around half of that of natural gas and yet we are introducing a gas-powered power station into our already overpriced electricity grid without appearing to have any serious consideration of other forms of energy like coal which, of course, the committee did not examine, but also nuclear power.

Similarly, total system costs based on American models which would be indicative of South Australian models, suggest nuclear is the lowest priced option. The models show a nuclear energy facility would cost $108 per megawatt hour of electricity produced; natural gas plants, which vary in cost and efficiencies, peaks at $130 per megawatt hour; solar energy at $144 per megawatt hour; and wind at $221 per megawatt hour.

South Australian statistics for 2010 from the Electric Power Research Institute—the term they use is 'levelised cost'—suggest that the levelised cost of energy for coal-fired electricity is somewhere between $78 and $91 per megawatt hour. Combined gas turbines are $97 per megawatt hour, wind is much higher at $150 to $214 per megawatt hour, and your average five megawatt solar photovoltaic system costs between $400 and $473 per megawatt hour, all costs considered.

There are some estimates for combined gas turbine power plants which are as low as $89 per megawatt hour, such as was suggested by the Australian Energy Technology Assessment report in 2012; however, I think the chamber's attention needs to be drawn to one crucial piece of information when considering electricity generation from gas, and that is that the variable cost for a natural gas plant is, of course, highly sensitive to fuel fluctuation prices. It is my understanding that nearly 90 per cent of the production costs of an actual gas plant come from fuel, whereas the fuel in a nuclear energy facility represents just 31 per cent of the production costs. The price, therefore, is relatively stable.

The Australian Conservatives are supportive of the use of gas turbine power plants; however, our goal is the most reliable and cost-effective power generation available. That is what we seek to achieve, and I think that is what our society deserves. To be fair, the statistics I have quoted vary somewhat in defining the actual cost of each energy source, but what they do effectively show is that nuclear fuel can be consistently lower than other forms of energy production, as evidenced by the statistics from reputable sources that I have just read out.

Considering South Australia more specifically, the royal commission found:

The introduction of a large nuclear power plant into the South Australian region of the National Energy Market in 2030 as a baseload plant would have an immediate impact by reducing the wholesale regional reference price of electricity in South Australia. It would be reduced by about 24 per cent or $33 per megawatt hour under the strong carbon price scenario. In comparison, the introduction of a small modular reactor into the South Australian region of the National Energy Market in 2030 would be expected to reduce wholesale prices by approximately 6 per cent or $8 per megawatt hour.

It continued:

In contrast, the integration of combined cycle gas turbine, or gas turbine with carbon capture and storage, does not have any impact on wholesale prices. That is because these generators do not operate in periods of increased supply from renewables or low demand, but only operate when the wholesale price of electricity is greater than their cost of operation.

The World Nuclear Association states:

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are usually fully included in the operating costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the competitiveness of nuclear fuel is improved.

It continues:

On a levelised (ie lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation.

It is pertinent to note that France has one of the lowest electricity prices in the whole of Europe and has extremely low carbon dioxide emission from electricity generation per capita, due to the fact that approximately 75 per cent of their power is generated from nuclear and 15 per cent from hydro plants. France is currently the world's largest net exporter of electricity, and that is due to its low cost of power generation. Power exportation nets France over €3 billion per year. This is a considerable sum. Of course for those who have concerns over emissions, it is important to note that nuclear energy is virtually emission-free.

We need to consider ways to effectively manage our power crisis. Our issues are twofold: electricity is unaffordable for some and, indeed, expensive for almost everyone; and our supply is unreliable. Nuclear fuel is one of the most affordable power supplies currently available and, because it contributes to baseload, it is highly reliable. The royal commission suggested that nuclear power may be a viable option to combat the power crisis we find in South Australia. The Australian Conservatives believe that at the very least it warrants further investigation.

The commission considered major accidents and issues regarding reactor safety but was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of safe operation and improvements within the industry to warrant further considerations of nuclear power going forward. We cannot be flippant about this. Of course, there have been significant nuclear accidents around the world over the years, and the Australian public—indeed, the Australian Conservatives—would need to be satisfied that the risks were very low, as the benefits appear to be substantial.

Australia has agreed to reduce its carbon footprint and has heavily relied upon renewables without appropriately meeting the requisite base load to ensure that we have consistent and reliable power at all times. Maybe that day will come when renewables are able to do this more consistently than they currently do, but that is the current situation.

Base load generators such as coal and nuclear are typically operated to maintain a constant level of generation and, therefore, are most profitable when required to meet a steady and predictable level of demand. Wind farms feed peaking power into the grid—that is, the power provided periodically to meet peak demand—but they are not suitable for base load in general terms unless their power is stored somewhere which is necessarily during peak periods. The irony of wind turbines, which may not be widely known, is that they are often needed during storms to meet peak demand. That is frequently when wind turbines have to be shut down as they are not constructed to operate in severe conditions. It is an unfortunate situation and further reduces the availability of power to the grid.

Possibly even more concerning is that peaking generators are profitable, and this provides the opportunity for corporations to make what we believe are unfair profits. Even in instances where they operate for a few days a year, they can be profitable because they are able to charge a much higher price per kilowatt to the consumer than would have been charged if they were using base load consistent power. This further increases the already exorbitant and unmanageable power prices for the ordinary Australian and South Australian.

Around the time of the Port Augusta power station closure, the then chief executive of the Australian Energy Council, Matthew Warren, said that the state would have less back-up energy available on days of peak demand, meaning that we would rely heavily on Victoria for base load whilst placing an ever-increasing demand on our renewables at a higher cost to the taxpayer. He further said that South Australia was 'in unchartered waters' and that we now face an increased level of risk to our energy supply, a risk that has not been seen anywhere before.

Regardless of these warnings, we decommissioned the Port Augusta power station without what seems to be an appropriate alternative, in our view. Not only was the Northern power station relatively new in terms of how one judges power stations, Alinta even offered to keep the power station running for just $25 million, a relatively low amount of money when one considers the costs of energy in general. It is a cost which seems negligible when comparing to the reported cost of the $550 million plan currently being pursued which is some 22 times more expensive.

So far in South Australia, we have had a couple of short to medium-term solutions which have been put forward by the government, and there is the gas-powered station at Torrens Island which we support. As I have already stated, the cost of gas power is variable due to the market price of gas at any given time and is considerably higher per megawatt hour than that of nuclear power, and indeed that of coal. So, whilst it improves the current situation somewhat, there is a better way forward in our view to improving our electricity supply and the cost of that supply to individuals.

Of course, we have many other solutions that have been put forward including the Tesla lithium ion battery. This is further pursuing the sorts of renewable options which have been put on the table. We understand that the battery will supply close to 10 per cent of the state's energy for almost an hour, so it is hardly a provider of a long-term solution, but to be fair, it is not designed to be, of course.

The freak storm last September which led to the statewide power outage was debilitating to South Australia. Whilst 22 transmission towers were knocked over, which affected the supply of power, the situation still remains that the connection to the Hazelwood station overloaded preventing our back-up from working as planned. Therefore, we had the embarrassing situation of being an entire state without power. We now face the imminent closure of the Hazelwood power plant and genuine questions remain about where our back-up power is going to come from and specifically where the base load will be coming from.

Nuclear power provides a low carbon energy source which the royal commission considered to be comparable with other renewable technologies in terms of its emissions. The commission noted that to have an effective nuclear power industry we would need to take action now for its future implementation. There certainly are many benefits to nuclear power, some of which I have already stated. Ultimately, though, whatever way you look at nuclear power, we believe that it comes down to the community's decision, but in our view the facts speak for themselves.

Nuclear power is reliable. It increases much-needed base load, it is relatively safe and efficient, and it is cost-effective over the life of the plant. There are no options in South Australia that compare to what nuclear power can offer and I urge the government to be proactive in continuing to at least examine these issues rather than relying on other solutions which currently have proven somewhat unreliable and have certainly led to increased prices. We need a genuine solution to the power crisis that South Australia faces.

In concluding, the views of the royal commission are a reasonable starting point for a continuing discussion for South Australia to host a commercial spent fuel repository, in our view. The potential economic benefits to the state are compelling and cannot easily be dismissed. The committee received evidence from individuals who had concerns about safety aspects of the storage of spent fuel; however, in our view, these concerns alone are insufficient to warrant a decision to not pursue the proposal regardless.

International evidence has shown that the risks associated with the storage of nuclear fuel can be successfully managed and have been over many years. South Australia could adopt international best practice in this area. Again, we urge the government to be proactive in pursuing a proposal of a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia. In our view, the benefit outweighs the concerns, and it is a worthy issue to consider moving forward into a new area of commercial activity. The Australian Conservatives are committed to ensuring that South Australia's energy grid is secure, but we cannot say that of the current situation.

Improvements have been made and we acknowledge that, but in our view much needs to be done. Our statewide blackout a year ago, is estimated to have cost the state some $367 million. Production was shut down, industries took weeks to recover and financially some probably are still trying to recover from the loss that they faced. We do have an energy crisis which needs to be addressed, and the fact of the matter is that our people, our fellow South Australians, are struggling to keep their head above water financially and high power prices simply do not help. We cannot keep increasing the cost of utilities and expect that we can have a state that can compete both with other states, and I think probably even more importantly, internationally.

High power prices undermine our economic competitiveness with other states and with our international competitors. We need to be looking for a viable electricity solution, starting with increasing our base load and also decreasing the cost of that particular energy source. I would also ask the government to give serious consideration to coal generation, which I think is unlikely, and even nuclear power, as an option for exploration, and continue to at least discuss this at a federal and international level. Again, nuclear power has very low emissions compared to other types of renewable energy.

The estimated cost savings are compelling, and anything we can do to ensure reliable cost-effective electricity for our state will go a long way to enticing industry back to South Australia. We need an effective electricity plan going forward. Reliability and cost efficiency are two seemingly obvious features which are missing from our current structure and it is time that alternative and better methods for electricity production are implemented. I do note that the announcements from the federal government in the last 24 hours go some way to achieving this, although only partly.

I commend the government for their efforts in considering increasing their role in the nuclear fuel cycle and would strongly encourage them to continue dialogue with the people of South Australia on the topic of a nuclear waste repository at the very least.

In my closing remarks, I stress that this is something that we believe warrants further pursuit, not necessarily that our state should rush headlong into this as the solution or the saviour, if I can put it that way, but we genuinely believe that there is an opportunity here. We are talking amounts in excess of $5 billion per annum, even by conservative estimates. If that is true and those numbers add up, and if further investigation can justify those numbers and bring a level of credibility to them, then in our view we should certainly be pursuing that opportunity.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:34): The notion that South Australia could become fabulously wealthy if only we would agree to take the world's high-level nuclear waste was ill-conceived from the very beginning. The committee heard evidence about previous attempts to establish nuclear waste dumps in other parts of the world and in Australia. Those attempts have mostly failed because the fundamentals just do not stack up. The liability lasts forever, the technology is unproven and risky, the economics are flawed and the public do not want it under any circumstances, according to the South Australian citizens' jury. So, this current proposal for South Australia has predictably and properly gone the way of its predecessors and it has been comprehensively dumped.

Whilst the Greens welcome the inevitable abandonment of this project, it has come at a significant cost to the community. Millions of dollars of public funds have been wasted pursuing this folly, and the community is rightly angry that other worthwhile projects and other investigations have suffered through this unnecessary distraction from the real issues that are facing South Australia.

The committee only had one recommendation that received majority support. That is the recommendation that no further public money be spent on a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. Hear, hear! That is a good recommendation. I fully support that. It was a waste of money and let's not waste any more. But there are a number of other lessons that we should learn from this process. When I say 'this process', I mean the royal commission into the nuclear industry, the government's consultation program, the citizens' jury, as well as the joint parliamentary inquiry that I was privileged to be part of.

Another recommendation I think the committee should have adopted refers to the fact that the law that currently prohibits nuclear waste dumps in South Australia was tinkered with last year in order to assuage the nervousness of the government that it might be breaking the law if it was to spend public money on consultation. So, we changed the law. We put in a special clause that says you are not allowed to use public money promoting a nuclear waste dump, but you are allowed to consult the community. We put that clause in. Now that the consultation has finished, now that the government has spoken, the opposition has spoken, and the people have spoken through the citizens' jury and through other surveys, let's put the act back to where it was before. Let's put it back so that there is no doubt about the prohibition on nuclear waste dumps in South Australia.

A third recommendation I think the committee should have adopted is one that relates to the relationship between the federal and state government. It became apparent very early on that the state was off on a frolic of its own. It was embarking on this major investigation about having a nuclear waste dump in South Australia when everyone knew that the bulk of the laws that regulate these things are at the commonwealth level.

The question that was then asked of the state government was, 'Have you been talking to the feds? Have you been talking to your colleagues in Canberra?' 'Oh, no, we haven't done that.' We got millions of dollars into the process, months into the process, and still we never had a single assurance from the commonwealth that they were on board with this project, that they were inclined or likely to give any of the authorities, permits or licences that would be needed to have a nuclear waste dump in Australia.

Another recommendation I think the committee should have adopted is one that relates to nuclear secrecy and improving scrutiny. It comes largely, I think, from the findings of the citizens' jury where, as I said, two-thirds of them, 350 people, had a strong conviction that South Australia should not pursue the opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries under any circumstances. That is a pretty bold statement.

However, the jury also found that there was a lack of trust in the state government and that the state government had a track record of poor performance when it came to managing issues relating to the nuclear industry. The recommendation that should flow from that is that the government should now review all of its nuclear related legislation with a view to removing the secrecy provisions and the exemptions. The aim should be to open up the nuclear industry to greater public scrutiny. That is the only way to rebuild any public trust, if there ever was any, in the government's competency as a regulator in this area.

Another recommendation I think the committee should have adopted—the Hon. Dennis Hood referred to it—relates to the Aboriginal communities. That was a big part of the discussion. Many parts of the Aboriginal community were very upset that they were not adequately consulted during the process. Ultimately, that fed through into the citizens' jury finding that this project was really so half-baked that it should not be proceeded with.

So, my recommendation would be that any future proposals for major developments of any kind, industrial in particular, that are likely to impact on traditional lands and the cultures of Aboriginal people, should always be subject to a comprehensive community engagement program that allows all people to participate in the decision-making process in a manner that is inclusive, respectful and culturally appropriate: that is the least we can do, and it was not done in this nuclear waste dump proposal.

The next recommendation relates to the royal commission. I maintained from the outset that the royal commission was the wrong tool for the type of inquiry that the government wanted to undertake. Using a royal commission under the Royal Commissions Act 1917 was unnecessarily formalistic and legalistic and was inappropriate for the nature of this inquiry. For example, the requirement for all written submissions to have to be sworn before a justice of the peace or some other authority before it could be accepted was misguided and put an unnecessary barrier in the way of public participation.

For example, my submission to the royal commission was rejected. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Courts of South Australia and Victoria, am admitted as a practitioner of the High Court of Australia and am a commissioner for signing affidavits, yet my submission was rejected because I did not go and see the clerk or one of the other JPs to validate the submission I was putting in. I told Commissioner Scarce that he did not need to do this, that he was putting unnecessary barriers in the way, but at the end of the day they did what they did—I think it was the wrong process.

Most importantly, though, the commission never once used the extensive coercive powers that royal commissions have in the conduct of this inquiry. Let's think about it: the power to get reluctant witnesses from Rome (or wherever they might be), bring them back to Australia, quiz people who do not want to have questions asked of them—that is what royal commissions do best: coercive powers, reluctant witnesses, make them answer. This was effectively an inquiry where people were desperate to have their say—they wanted to have their say. They put in their submissions. There was no need to subpoena, if you like, anyone to come and give evidence.

I think that overly formal attitude of the royal commission fuelled concerns in the community that it was elitist and that it was not open to hearing a range of divergent views. So, my recommendation would be that any future proposals that involve complex economic, social or environmental issues should look for a tool more fit for purpose than is a royal commission, and we should limit royal commissions to those situations where the use of statutory powers clearly are necessary, such as compelling reluctant witnesses.

The next recommendation I would make is in relation to how inquiries, in this case a royal commission, choose the experts to advise them. What we saw with the royal commission is that they had a number of paid consultants—paid by you and I, the taxpayers—and they engaged these consultants who had clear, ongoing connections with the nuclear industry, often as lobbyists for the industry. We paid these people to advise the royal commission and, ultimately, advise the government and the parliament about the desirability of a nuclear waste dump.

The fact that the royal commission provided considerable weight to the findings of these consultants cast further doubt, in my view, on the independence and rigor of its analysis. In particular, the lack of any second opinion on the question of the financial viability of the proposed nuclear waste dump was a serious credibility problem for the royal commission.

I say that because I think that even the Hon. Dennis Hood in his contribution would agree that the only reason that was really advanced to do this was that it was a potential economic opportunity. Only one economic analysis was done. Sure, the committee I was part of got further opinions, we sought them, but the commission did not, and I think that was a flaw. So, we need to keep vested interests at arm's length—we do not want them running the show.

I also believe that the royal commission failed in, I think, its elitist approach to this inquiry by not giving everyone who wanted an opportunity to be heard that chance. We had a number of national and state conservation groups that basically said, 'The royal commission refused to hear from us.' I have put this personally to the commissioner. His view was that he did not think many of these people had anything new to add, and so he did not hear from them. Imagine how that would work if we tried to do an inquiry like that in parliament. Inquiries 101, the stakeholders who want to be heard, give them a chance to be heard! It is not rocket science. Then people scratch their heads and say, 'I wonder why the citizens' jury thought that this was a bad idea?' The royal commission was the architect, in many ways, of its own defeat.

I think the recommendation should be that in all future inquiries, of whatever type, make sure that all the divergent views are heard. Do not tell Friends of the Earth or the Australian Conservation Foundation or the Conservation Council that they are not required to give evidence because, for example, 'We've seen your written evidence; we don't need to bring you in in person.' Whereas, the proponents were allowed in person to give evidence on multiple occasions. It was an own goal of catastrophic proportions.

I am delighted that this process is almost over. I have described it as not the nail in the coffin of the nuclear waste dump, but the penultimate nail, because we still in this parliament have to deal with the legislation. The legislation was tampered with last year to allow this process to go ahead. Now that the process has run its course, we need to put the legislation back where it was. That will be the final nail in, I think, a very sorry chapter in South Australian history: how to waste tens of millions of dollars on something that was never going to amount to anything, ever.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.