Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Hansard source

You are right, Mr President. That was a very long question. Indeed, it was several questions. I should first address the issue that Senator Milne has raised regarding the Lucas Heights research reactor. I note that it is a research reactor, not a power reactor. We are advised that the rupture of a pipe inside a radiopharmaceutical production hot cell at that facility resulted in no harm to workers at the site or to the community. The gases released were chemically inert, and very small amounts of such gases are routinely released in the course of manufacturing nuclear medicine. The dose to any resident in the surrounding area would have been equivalent to about one minute of natural background radiation—far less than one would get from catching a plane between Sydney and Canberra or working in Parliament House. That is why we are all glowing today, I suppose! Although the incident was below the regulatory reporting threshold it was treated seriously and reported promptly to ARPANSA, the relevant regulatory authority, and I do note and confirm that the Lucas Heights facility does operate according to international best practice.

In relation to the second part of the question, which I suppose is asking why we are persisting with an inquiry, the Prime Minister has articulated that case clearly and profoundly over the course of the last week or so. We do think that it is sensible in debating any issue to have the facts on the table. We understand why the Greens would not have anything to do with it, but we would have thought that the Labor Party would have been interested in knowing what the facts in relation to nuclear power production are, including both the economics and the safety issues.

Senator Milne quite rightly says that safety is an issue. Of course it is. Safety is a very significant part of this inquiry to see what circumstances and what regulatory arrangements would be required if a nuclear power industry were to be established in this country. If we are to have a sensible debate about the long-term energy needs of this country, it is important that we assemble an independent expert panel to advise both the government and the population at large what the facts are in relation to this matter. I find it extraordinary that one could object entirely to having any such inquiry. The ostrich-like behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in just saying, ‘We don’t believe in the inquiry, and we don’t believe in nuclear power at all,’ really is just cynical populism.

As Senator Milne noted, I have said that, from my time as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and speaking as an economic rationalist, I doubt that nuclear power is likely to be viable in this country for a very long time. I think I was quoted as saying 100 years. It is my view that nuclear power could only really be viable if you so taxed the coal and gas industries as to make them unviable. So assuming that this country is not so silly as to price out a business, one of the factors which makes it internationally competitive—that is, its abundant access to coal and gas—then it is my view that nuclear power is unlikely to be viable. But that is one of the things that we will discover from this inquiry. That is why I welcome this inquiry. We will get to the facts on that matter to see whether it can be viable and, if it is economically viable, what is the safety regime that should be in place. But it is quite misleading to draw any bow from what just occurred at Lucas Heights to the whole issue of whether or not there should be a nuclear power production industry in this country.