John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is nice to have the opportunity to make a contribution to a debate in this House in which I have an active interest and to not be distracted by running around organising other people to speak. Coming from my background, I am delighted, contrary to the member for Wills, to see us engaging in an active debate on the possibility of nuclear power being utilised in Australia. I note that as a result of the opposition’s amendment there has been a very wide-ranging debate. I have heard contributions talking about global warming, greenhouse, waste disposal and even terrorist risks. I hope that you will allow the broad discussion to continue to occur. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 addresses what I suppose, in the great concept of things, is the small although significant matter of broadening the storage of nuclear waste at ANSTO, and I will speak about that shortly.

I go back to my early formative years as a young engineer out of university. I started my career with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. I have to say, my first view of the Morwell open cut shocked me with its sheer size. The first project I was engaged in was to shift the Morwell River—it was an environmental challenge, even in those days—not just a few feet but three kilometres out of the way, including four kilometres of 3½-metre-diameter pipe. After that I worked on the first stages of the Loy Yang open cut with the construction of reservoirs, storages, settling ponds and so forth, which has subsequently gone on and required as much as a billion dollars of investment. Then there is the Yallourn open cut in Victoria, now completed.

Even in those days I realised that the use of such a dirty, inefficient material—not having access to good, clean coal is Victoria’s challenge, unfortunately—was a very inefficient process by which to create electricity. So in the mid-seventies I set off with great hopes and expectations, because the great challenge was hydro-electric power. Off I went to Scotland, which was the home of hydro-electric power generation. I did some work at the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and completed a Master of Science in what I thought was the latest, state-of-the-art, ‘come back to Australia and be part of development of hydro-electric power generation in Australia’ area. What I did not realise was that I was at the end of the time, the end of the era. Australia’s capacity for ongoing hydro power generation was already then at its zenith. It had had its peak. Of course, we have moved on now. We have now got national grids connecting Snowy Hydro and Tasmanian hydro, which gives us the capacity to meet that peak power requirement, but we are still left with the challenge of meeting an ever-increasing demand for base power.

As much as the member for Wills can complain about what he alleges is the method by which this debate is now being discussed or the mechanisms the government has chosen to create greater discussion, the sheer reality is that, with the size of the demand, the renewable energy that has been encouraged, including wind turbines and solar power, just does not have the capacity to meet the target. Even with the current emphasis on greater conservation, we are prolific consumers of power in Australia. The same could be said about our prolific consumption of water. The nature of the population of this country means that this is a serious question we need to have a mature discussion about.

In speaking to my own constituency on this matter, I have the capacity to have greater faith in the engineers and scientists that develop the complexity of a nuclear power station. I can remember in my university years being completely fascinated by nuclear physics and even then what was emerging as high-tech development of nuclear power stations. I am a lot more comfortable with the focus on not just one failsafe but multiple failsafe mechanisms to cope with the risk of dealing with such an awesome source of power and I am prepared to lead that discussion in my own constituency. It seems that most of the discussion that prevents progress on any matter is always the suggestion of fear or—ignorance is the wrong word—uncertainty and lack of trust.

The member for Wills even made mention of the word ‘fear’. I think people need to be better focused on the use of this power source in a constructive way, to be less influenced by what they see in Hollywood and to put some faith in the capacity of international scientists and engineers and Australian engineers to construct these facilities in a safe way. Fear is a very powerful emotion, and it is very sad that the politics we allow in our country feeds on that. That is not just with regard to the discussion we are having now. I see it happen on so many occasions.

I am very proud of the activities of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO. My first detailed exposure to their activities was when serving on a Public Works Committee a couple of terms ago when we conducted an inquiry into the provision of the new OPAL light water reactor at Lucas Heights. I can remember having a discussion with one of the witnesses who was giving evidence. I asked the question: were they aware of the actual size of the reactor? Of course, they responded by talking about a building that is 200 feet high and 150 feet square. I said: ‘No, that is the building. Could you tell me how big you think this new OPAL reactor is?’ They were quite surprised to realise that the physical dimensions of the reactor itself—that is, the real hotplate—would fit in a small domestic fridge. But such was the emotive nature of the evidence we were hearing. We cannot afford to allow that to happen if we are going to have a mature discussion about the potential for the development of nuclear power in this great country.

It is a sheer reality that we have to meet our greenhouse targets no matter what the cost. What we see happening in Victoria is the development of what is a filthy source material in brown coal—it is not much better than petrified mud. The disposal of ash waste from those power stations was the thing that staggered me in my early years building the ash disposal ponds. They are enormous. The size of the ash disposal facility at Morwell is bigger than the surface area of the open cut itself, and then there is the added overburden. Nowadays it is a mature discussion we are having about our urgent need to meet greenhouse targets.

The member for Wills is partly right in his contribution here this evening as one who, like me, has taken a great interest in the weather activity over the last 25 years—there have been some dramatic changes. Where once my constituency could boast an average annual rainfall of between nine and 10 inches a year we are now struggling to grow grain crops down in the Mallee on four inches. Thankfully, owing to the investment from levy based research funds in creating varieties of barley and wheat that can still produce a yield from low rainfall, we are still able to produce grain crops. But the pattern of rainfall that I have observed over the last 30 years has been ever-increasingly depleted. (Quorum formed) Thank you, colleagues—I was actually spending considerable time establishing my credentials to speak about the need for nuclear power in Australia and I had not realised it was such a painful thing for the opposition to hear.

This bill, as I said earlier, addresses a significant but minor matter in relation to utilising the expertise and facilities that ANSTO provides. With the establishment of the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory, it will be important for ANSTO’s capabilities to be available for conditioning and repackaging waste from other Commonwealth agencies prior to transport to this facility. ANSTO may also be charged with the management and operation of the facility. In that case it will obviously be necessary for it to have the authority to manage radioactive waste other than from its own Commonwealth sources.

I was mentioning how proud I am to record the activities that ANSTO engages in. Over the last 30 years it has been using the high flux Australian reactor at Lucas Heights. They also have access to particle accelerators, radiopharmaceuticals production facilities and a range of other unique research facilities. HIFAR is Australia’s only nuclear reactor and a considerable amount of Commonwealth investment is now being made to bring it into the 21st century with a replacement open pool Australian light water reactor. It is in its final stages of construction. ANSTO also operates the national medical cyclotron, an accelerator facility used to produce certain short-lived radioisotopes for nuclear medical procedures. It is the advances that are being made in that particular area of medicine that all persons across Australia, including us here in this chamber, will one day enjoy the benefits from.

It is a good bill; it is worth supporting. I have appreciated the wide-ranging debate that has occurred. I am looking forward to a responsible discussion occurring from here on about where this country goes to meet the sheer demand for power generation and, at the same time, to make a significant contribution to those important greenhouse targets. It is not too late. I am well aware that there are some people around who have not yet accepted the inevitable about what is happening to the global environment, but it is very real in my electorate and it is already here. I am quite willing to engage in a constructive debate with my constituents on the matter. I commend this bill. It has been a worthwhile discussion and I am pleased to have been a part of it.

See this speech in context