HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY (PROHIBITION) (PROHIBITION OF OTHER NUCLEAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2007. Page 964.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:56): In 2004, the state government successfully banned a nuclear waste dump in South Australia. While members opposite were largely silent on the issue, and even encouraged the state government to accept the imposition of a national nuclear waste dump in the Far North of the state, the government battled against the odds and won the challenge against the federal government in court for it to compulsorily acquire land to locate the dump.

The state Labor government has a clear record on nuclear waste storage, and it won an assurance that the federal government would no longer consider our state a dumping ground for the rest of the nation's radioactive waste. The government also succeeded at this year's national conference in having the federal ALP rule out locating any nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia. We said that we could take care of our own radioactive waste, and we have; in fact, we were the first state to carry out a comprehensive audit of how radioactive waste is stored in the state.

The Premier, the Hon. Mike Rann, has ruled out enrichment. The National Australian Labor Party platform, agreed to at the 44th ALP National Conference in April this year, already prohibits the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. On Friday 15 June this year, the Premier publicly ruled out any uranium enrichment plant being built in this state. On that occasion, the Premier said:

We, the state government, are opposed to a nuclear power plant and an enrichment plant being built in our state and we will take on the Federal government in the same way that we took them on over their proposal to build a nuclear waste dump in South Australia.

The position of the state government on the question of nuclear power plants has also been clear and consistent. The state government has ruled out local nuclear power plants in this state. The Premier and the Minister for Energy, the Hon. Patrick Conlon, have made several statements on this issue, indicating that nuclear power plants in South Australia would be financially irresponsible, economically unviable and would massively force up the price of power. I am also told that the large size of the nuclear reactor precludes it from supplying a small state market due to its inability to very quickly meet changes in demand; that is, it is able to provide baseload power but cannot address peak demand.

If South Australia's baseload was only provided by a single source—a nuclear reactor—it would not be good risk management and would contravene national electricity market rules. Nuclear power in South Australia is not an option. In fact, the Premier made a statement to the other place on 6 March this year informing the house of the state government's intention to introduce legislation that will trigger a state referendum on nuclear power should the federal government legislate to override the state government's opposition to local nuclear power plants.

The state government said that it would ensure that all South Australians would have a say if a federal Liberal government was to change federal law to allow the construction of a nuclear reactor in South Australia. South Australians did not get a say when ETSA was privatised by the Liberal government; South Australians did not get a say when the federal Liberal government wanted to impose a nuclear dump on South Australia, but the state government is determined that the will of South Australians will be heard on this significant and controversial issue.

Turning to radioisotope production facilities, I am told that the term 'radioisotope production facility' applies to cyclotrons as well as nuclear reactor facilities that produce radioisotopes. The cyclotrons are very important for the production of short half-life radioisotopes used in hospital nuclear medicine facilities for diagnosis purposes, including use as tracers such as fluorine-18 in positron emission tomography (PET) scanners.

PET scanners are very useful tools for diagnosis and treatment planning in relation to a range of cancers. Currently there are only a few cyclotrons in Australia, and the Royal Adelaide Hospital sources radioisotopes from a cyclotron in Melbourne. As medical uses of radioisotopes increase, it is possible that at some point in the not too distant future a hospital or university in South Australia may plan to acquire a cyclotron. Therefore, any prohibition in legislation could impact on medical research affecting thousands of South Australians.

In relation to a nuclear weapons facility, there is no suggestion for a nuclear weapons facility in South Australia, and therefore the state government sees no need to legislate for the prohibition of such a facility. Clearly, the South Australian government would not support such a facility. Any suggestion by the Greens or any implication contained in the bill that nuclear weapons may be deployed in South Australia is farcical at best and alarmist at worst.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 currently prohibits the federal government from constructing a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, a nuclear power plant, an enrichment plant and a reprocessing plant. The South Australian government has a clear stance on the banning of nuclear waste dumps and nuclear reactors and will use legislation if the federal government tries to impose these facilities on South Australians by overturning current laws. The state government has ruled out nuclear enrichment plants.

The state government does not want to jeopardise any future research into the diagnosis of cancers or other illnesses by prohibiting the uses of cyclotrons. The government opposes the bill for the reasons I have outlined. The government has an exemplary record on the issue of opposing nuclear power plants and a nuclear waste dump in our state. For the reasons I have outlined, particularly in relation to the possible future location of a cyclotron, the government opposes the legislation that the Hon. Mr Parnell has put before the council, as we do not consider that it achieves its objectives.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:02): It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill, and I will briefly outline the reasons. The mover of the bill, the Hon. Mark Parnell, has outlined in his second reading speech that 'the Greens are introducing the bill today to make absolutely certain that the current administrative ban on nuclear power stations has some legal teeth'. The proposal is that the only way that a nuclear power station or other facility could be established in this state would be by a reversal of an act of parliament.

The position of the Liberal Party is that we believe there should be an informed debate, and this effectively closes the door on that debate. Without wishing to be too self-indulgent, I distinctly remember that as a teenager one of the big things that were front of mind in the list of fears of young people was a third world war and a nuclear war, and for that reason a lot of people of my generation feared nuclear power.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That is right; I distinctly remember that. So, that was something that was a great fear of my generation. I believe that the fears of the current teenagers would be much closer to global warming and, indeed, I note from an Advertiser poll of a range of different high school students that nuclear power was not something that featured in their list of concerns whatsoever. Obviously, global warming and water security were key issues. So, we believe we should not be shutting the door on this debate.

In relation to the government, I find some of its comments amusing; it is all right for us to dig up uranium in Australia as long as we are not using it for such purposes in this state. So, it is really just a whole lot of positioning on the government's part and, in spite of the words of the speaker prior to me, I believe its position is inconsistent and incongruous.

There is no doubt that our traditional reliance on fossil fuels, particularly in this state, may well have an end date, and we need to look at alternatives sooner rather than later. The technological advancement in the field of energy is very rapid and, therefore, I believe that a lot of concerns that have been raised in relation to reactor accidents such as Chernobyl are not particularly relevant today. So, in the interests of enabling the debate to continue and not shutting the door on what may well turn out to be a much cleaner form of energy, we oppose this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:05): I do not have any chewing gum available, but I can certainly get some. I rise to indicate Family First's position regarding this bill. I think the Hon. Michelle Lensink has outlined a very credible position. From the beginning, Family First has supported examining the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia but believes it is just too early in the debate to make a decision either way.

There are significant risks with nuclear power, and that needs to be acknowledged. We have all seen the devastation of Chernobyl and other events around the world, and for that reason we think nuclear power needs to be treated with the utmost caution. Equally, however, nuclear power has brought many benefits to the world we live in. For example, there is no doubt at all that, whilst some disagree, many would agree that there are benefits associated with nuclear power such as reduced emissions and the like.

Family First's position is that it is too early to commit, and the problem with this bill as we see it is that it forces a long-term decision and forces us to commit and rule out something that may be beneficial to our society. We believe it is irresponsible to close the door on any policy or energy options, and this is especially the case as the world commits to the fight against global warming.

Despite its shortcomings, nuclear power remains at present the only proven source of power able to deliver a baseline electricity supply without the emission of greenhouse gases. In 2002 my colleague the Hon. Andrew Evans participated in the debate against the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Amendment Act of 2003, which strengthened legislation to ban nuclear waste storage in this state. This bill expands the act so that all nuclear facilities should now be banned. Therefore, enrichment and nuclear power sites are now also banned under this bill.

Family First believes that Australia needs a full and informed public debate of measures to combat global warming, with every option on the table. The entire Australian community has to be involved in making decisions about short and long-term solutions. From the beginning, Family First has stated that we do not believe in any one simple solution; for example, switching from coal to nuclear power. However, we strongly oppose any moves to remove any potential solutions from the table, as they may just prove to be very vital and important solutions to the significant problem of global warming, amongst other issues that we face, both environmentally and economically. For that reason, whilst we certainly can understand the sentiment behind this bill, we are not able to support it at this time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:08): I thank the Hon. Sandra Kanck, the Hon, Bernard Finnigan, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Dennis Hood for their contributions to this debate. I will just respond, first, to some of the comments of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan. He clearly wants to have it both ways: he wants the public to take on—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: He wants to have his yellowcake and eat it too.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Michelle Lensink points out that he wants to have his yellowcake and eat it too. I find the position of the Labor Party quite remarkable. They want us to take on faith their objection to the nuclear industry, or those bits of it other than uranium mining, but they are not prepared to go down the path of legislating. For example, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan pointed to the Premier's commitment to holding a referendum if, for example, it seems that the commonwealth is about to override these non-legislated but stated objections that the Labor Party here has to nuclear power. But that begs the question: if the Labor Party are going to hold a referendum, does that say that they have no view, that they have no policy or have no position? If the referendum was to come back by a small margin perhaps in favour of nuclear power for South Australia, does that then become the Labor Party position? Do they not have a position?

You have to contrast the position of the Labor Party in this state with, for example, the Labor Party in Queensland. At the end of last year the Queensland Beattie government introduced legislation to prohibit the building of nuclear power facilities in Queensland. It was not that hard for the Beattie government to actually put into legislation what it expressed its principles to be and what this government expresses its principles to be. The Queensland legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006, includes uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power plants and nuclear waste sites in Queensland—the same nuclear facilities that I am seeking to prohibit through this legislation.

I think it is also important to point out that this week is, in fact, the start of United Nations Disarmament Week. The connection between the nuclear industry and the arms race is one that is clear and known to all of us. So, whilst I do not fall for the bait of the Hon. Bernard Finnigan and suggest that we are about to get nuclear weapons in South Australia—that is not the policy of anyone or any party here—I still think that if we are against such a thing happening we can legislate accordingly.

Having listened very carefully to what the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said, I think that the only part of my legislation that tipped the Labor Party against supporting my bill was the fact that some potential technology that is useful in cancer research, and perhaps finding a cure for cancer, might be caught up in my bill. That is not my intention. So, whilst I urged all honourable members to finish their second reading contributions so we could put this to a vote, I have now been enlightened by the Hon. Bernard Finnigan that if I was to remove the reference to radioisotope production then that might be just what the doctor ordered, if I can put it that way, a way to break through the impasse.

It seems that everything else in my bill is very consistent with what the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said. What I now propose to do is to have an amendment drafted to my legislation to remove that sticking point, to remove that radioisotope production reference, so that we are left with the core nuclear facilities that we are trying to ban in this legislation, such as nuclear power and the enrichment of power station grade or weapons grade uranium. I do appreciate the Hon. Bernard Finnigan's comments, and I now propose to go away and prepare those amendments. So, rather than push this matter to a premature vote now, I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT