Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Minchin, representing the Prime Minister. Given that the leak at Lucas Heights nuclear reactor demonstrated that even countries like Australia cannot prevent dangerous radioactive leaks and accidents occurring in nuclear facilities, given that the UK Sustainable Development Commission and the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US recognise nuclear reactors as terrorist targets—with the latter saying that the Indian Point reactor poses a severe threat to the entire New York metropolitan area—given that the government has just spent $10.6 million on a new security entrance at Lucas Heights in spite of the government’s view that a nuclear power plant is not more of a target than the electricity grid or a railway network, and given your own view, Senator, that nuclear power would not be economic in Australia for 100 years, what is the real reason that the Prime Minister has instigated an inquiry into the nuclear industry and power generation in Australia when renewable and solar thermal technology can safely, cost effectively and quickly produce all of Australia’s electricity requirements?

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators about the length of questions. That was a very long question.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to 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.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. I note his brief on Lucas Heights. The point there, Minister, simply related to the fact that accidents like that can occur in Australia. Given the minister’s statement about the economics of nuclear power and given that it is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to address climate change, can he confirm what the purpose of this inquiry really is? Can he tell Australians whether it is really about enrichment, the leasing of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste dumps in Australia, and not about energy generation?

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

It sounded to me as though Senator Milne was answering her own question. She seems to have a view in her own mind as to what this inquiry is about. I think I explained what the inquiry is about. It is to look at the long-term energy needs of this country and to see whether nuclear power may or may not have any place in that future. We live in a world where countries like France obtain 70 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power. Nuclear power is a reality and has been operating in this world for a very long time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The question was clearly about whether the inquiry is about enrichment—not about nuclear power plants—and that is the point that the minister should get to in the 30 seconds he has left.

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

I thank Senator Brown for that assistance. He is quite right: parts of the terms of this inquiry are to look at the question of the further expansion of Australia’s uranium mining industry and at whether or not it would be feasible and sensible for Australia to develop a uranium enrichment industry. It seems quite sensible for that to be looked at. We have not committed to that. I am not aware of any proposal to have a uranium enrichment industry, in fact, but I think it quite sensible for the government, responsibly, to see under what circumstances such a development might be possible, feasible or sensible.