Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on nuclear power in this country is now over. The recent terrible events in Japan and the ongoing emergency at the Fukushima nuclear power plant have shown very clearly the dangers of nuclear energy and why we should not go down this path in our country. It should silence once and for all those who seek to take Australia down the road into this dangerous and threatening future.

The idea that we should be the world’s biggest supplier—and then recipient—of nuclear fuel must also now be taken off the agenda. Around the world, even before this disaster, the nuclear industry was in decline, desperately trying to find new markets and trying to use climate change to justify its continued existence. Now we are being forced again to confront the dangers of nuclear power and learn the lessons. We did not learn the lessons of Three Mile Island. We did not learn the lessons of Chernobyl. Now we must learn the lessons of Fukushima and say, ‘Enough!’

The Australian public, it seems, have taken heed of the dangers. An Essential Media poll released this week gives a clear picture of what the Australian people think about nuclear power. The poll found that 53 per cent oppose Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity. That is a considerable shift in opinion since this question was last asked in December 2010.

We should not underestimate the danger of the present situation. Frank von Hippel, a nuclear physicist from Princeton University, said of Fukushima:

‘This is definitely in the Chernobyl league now. If the reactors go, that’s bad, of course. But the real concern at this point is if those … spent-fuel pools catch fire. There are many Chernobyls’ worth of radioactive material in there.’

Right now, emergency workers in Japan continue frantically to try to bring the situation at Fukushima under control. I hope, and I am sure every member in this place does too, that this work is successful. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, say there is reason for hope. They say:

There have been some positive developments in the last 24 hours, but the overall situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious.

Efforts to restore electrical power to the site continue. Off-site electrical power has been connected to the local substation for Unit 2 … Work is continuing under difficult conditions to connect power from the substation to the reactor building.

Regardless of the success or failure of these heroic workers to bring us back from the brink of catastrophe, it is now absolutely clear that the risks of nuclear power are just too great for us in Australia to go down this path. Already in Japan the impact is enormous, with hundreds of thousands of people evacuated; the workers exposed to high levels of radiation; and traces of radioactivity found in water, milk and spinach. Japan’s exports of food are being affected. And this is no doubt just the beginning, because, even in the unlikely event that no more radioactive material is released, there will be enormous economic and social costs to stabilisation and, it seems, the inevitable mothballing of these reactors.

This nuclear disaster also throws into question Australia’s continued exports of uranium, which are used to fuel these dangerous nuclear power plants in our region, including in Japan. That is right: Australia exports uranium to Japan. In fact, TEPCO, the company that operates the Fukushima reactors, buys and burns Australian uranium in its reactors. It may be—although we do not know for sure—that Australian uranium fuelled some or part of the reactors in Fukushima. We need to take the opportunity, while our focus is on Japan, to review again Australia’s role in this industry. Uranium mining fuels an industry that is expensive, dangerous and toxic. While the rest of the world is turning away from nuclear power, the Australian mining industry is trying to shovel as much as it can out the door before the world changes direction.

It is worth looking at what nuclear advocates for in this place have said about nuclear power and the nuclear industry. Here, less than three weeks ago, members of the Labor and coalition parties were lining up to spruik nuclear power. That was during the recent debate on the Muckaty nuclear waste dump bill. A number of members expressed very frightening, unequivocal support for nuclear power. The member for Canning had this to say:

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened decades ago. When people want to talk about them, remember that comparing those archaic facilities at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl with nuclear facilities today is akin to comparing an FJ Holden to a Lamborghini. They were FJ Holdens, and they broke up and fell apart, but nothing in any way like that has happened since. The modern nuclear reactor today delivers clean, unpolluted power. The Greens will say, ‘Shock, horror—nuclear power!’ …

He was backed up by the member for Kooyong, who said:

Decades of experience since the explosions at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island indicate that reactors are inherently safer too.

The Labor member for Lyons got into the line-up as well. He said:

New generations are coming to understand that, as we look at the need for a low-carbon future, we certainly have to have a debate on nuclear energy.

The only reason we have not had to do this in Australia is that nuclear is still very expensive compared to other power sources, such as coal. But there may be a day when we will have to consider it—and that day is getting closer all the time.

The member for Mitchell then accurately claimed:

We have seen more and more Labor members realising—after decades of inaction—that nuclear is a viable and long-term strategic option in Australia’s interests.

The list goes on and on.

But where are those members now? What has happened to their irresponsible advocacy of nuclear power? Are they going to continue to claim against all the evidence that nuclear power is safe? Are they going to continue to push for its adoption in Australia? Will they look voters in the face at the next election and say, ‘I want a nuclear power station in your electorate’? In the middle of Tasmania? In Hawthorn or Kew? I doubt it. These wild statements in support of nuclear power were made in the context of the debate on the government nuclear waste dump legislation, as I say, less than three weeks ago.

The risks and safety of nuclear waste have been highlighted again by the dangers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima nuclear plant. While the waste intended to be stored at the Muckaty nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory is of a much smaller volume than those fuel rods, it reinforces the importance of honestly facing the risks to the people and the environment of the Northern Territory from the dump. The dump will house processed spent fuel from Australia’s Lucas Heights reactor as well as other radioactive material, and it is opposed by the traditional owners. The bill to put in place the dump has passed the House of Representatives but not yet the other place, and that gives this parliament and the government another opportunity to look again at the dangers from the dump in light of the events in Japan.

The nuclear dump is dangerous and unnecessary. The nuclear dump is opposed by the traditional owners. The dump is being rammed through the parliament against the wishes of Territorians. We have been reminded again of the dangers inherent in the nuclear industry. We should learn the lessons of Fukushima. We should end Australia’s involvement in this dangerous cycle of mining, radiation, weapons and waste, and make the rejection of the Muckaty bill the first step away from a nuclear future. The government should now go back to the drawing board. Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, is said to have reflected on the recent events in Japan and stated:

We cannot continue business as usual … the only honest answer is a forced and accelerated path into the era of renewables.

Likewise, now is the time to commit Australia to a safe energy future.