HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Nuclear Waste

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:50): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of nuclear waste.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Dutton Liberal opposition has claimed that if they win the next federal election—God forbid—they will introduce nuclear energy to Australia. The details of the plan are unclear and yet to be released. The Coalition's plan includes a small modular reactor in Port Augusta. It is still unclear how much waste would be produced each year, and Australia does not have a national storage facility.

Mr Dutton has been rightly criticised for his claims that only a Coke can's worth of waste would be generated under his plan, given that the waste generated by the untested technology is unclear. According to estimates from Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe of Griffith University's School of Environment and Science, for a small 400-megawatt modular reactor you would expect that to produce about six tonnes of waste a year. It could be more or less depending on the actual technology, but it would certainly be multiple tonnes a year. My questions to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development are:

1. Which regions would be required to store nuclear waste, and what is the potential impact on those regions?

2. Has the Dutton opposition bothered to reach out to the Malinauskas government regarding their plans to store nuclear waste in our state's regions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is certainly the case that the amount of detail that has been provided by the federal opposition has been extremely limited. The number of questions that have arisen around their proposal—and I use that term very loosely, very loosely indeed—their thought bubble perhaps, some might suggest, would be a more appropriate term—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to be able to hear the minister.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The detail has been extremely scant. What we do know is that on 19 June last year the Liberal Coalition announced that if elected to government it would establish a nuclear power industry, but it was a policy announcement which, as I have already mentioned, fell extraordinarily short of any detail, including an indication of cost.

However, there are some reputable estimates of what the Coalition's thought bubble might cost in monetary terms. On 9 December last year the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published its draft 2023-24 GenCost report for consultation. According to my advice, it again found that integrated renewables provide the lowest cost range of new build electricity technology, and the CSIRO found that a new, large-scale nuclear plant built then—that was, of course, in 2024—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —would require a capital cost of $8,655 per kilowatt of capacity. In contrast, a large-scale solar farm would cost $1,463 and onshore wind $3,223. That is, nuclear—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —would cost many times as much to build as some of the alternatives. The CSIRO report was a general overview of the costs of various technologies. We know the costs would be extremely high. For South Australia, nuclear, I am advised, would increase household bills between $384 and $1,160 a year. That is just the increase, according to the IEEFA. We can look at some real-life examples.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, you must be about to conclude your remarks so we can move on.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to leave it there.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Supplementary question arising from the answer.

The PRESIDENT: No. The Hon. Ms Lensink, I couldn't hear most of her answer anyhow, so I can't rule in or out.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: But I haven't asked my supplementary.

The PRESIDENT: I am saying to you that I can't rule on a supplementary when I couldn’t hear the answer.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: But I haven't even asked it yet.

The PRESIDENT: Ask your question. I am saying that I can't rule in or out a supplementary question because I couldn't hear the answer. There was too much shouting from both sides.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That's very disappointing.

The PRESIDENT: Ask your question, please.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: That's very disappointing.

The PRESIDENT: I am disappointed, too.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I was wondering when the minister became an expert on energy policy if she had been provided the question before question time, but I will leave that.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink, please just ask your question.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You can always throw me out, Mr President. I have been longing for that for 20 years. My question—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Are you going to ask a question or will I move on?

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