Wednesday, 29 May 2024

Nuclear energy

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (17:46): I rise this evening to grieve for the fantastic communities of Anglesea and the Latrobe Valley under the dangerous and reckless nuclear fantasies of those opposite. In 2022 Liberal Party mouthpiece and employment agency the Institute of Public Affairs stated that reliable, affordable baseload power from coal and nuclear are the only options for Australia’s future energy mix. Additionally, in June that year several coalition MPs, including one anonymous frontbencher, spoke to the Age indicating support for nuclear or stating that nuclear power should not be completely ruled out.

In November last year a sort of fringe-dwelling conservative Liberal and factional warlord, member for Western Victoria Mrs McArthur, stated in the other place that nuclear:

… is the cheapest and most reliable zero-emission clean energy source of minimal impact.

We will go into some of the impact a little bit further along. She claimed to be technology agnostic, which is just a downright lie, and called for a lift of the nuclear ban and called for state investment in nuclear supply. You would think this kind of nuclear showboating would be the sort of thing coming from a far-right factional fringe – to be fair, the Victorian Liberals probably are not too far from that – but it is the kind of thing that is quite happy living in an opposition that does not care about its electorate. Surely there are enough sensible, smart and switched-on people among those opposite to temper the nuclear ambitions of a few testy right-wingers. Surely cooler heads might prevail before the opposition goes nuclear. Surely the Leader of the Opposition is not so loose on the reins that he cannot even pull the brakes on something so electorally suicidal. Well, the Leader of the Opposition must be deficient in either brains or backbone, because he has decided that nuclear, and this is a quote, will almost certainly ‘form part of the energy mix going forward’.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: where will the Leader of the Opposition place his dangerous and risky nuclear reactors? Will the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs McArthur and the member for Polwarth ‍–

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, such ludicrous claims surely must only be made by substantive motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been listening carefully to the member, and I counsel members on getting close to imputations on members.

Dylan WIGHT: Will the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs McArthur and the member for Polwarth visit their constituents in Anglesea and explain their dodgy nuclear ambitions to the residents of the Surf Coast? Where would the Leader of the Opposition plan on storing toxic and cancerous nuclear waste? You can bet your bottom dollar that it will not be Hawthorn; it will not be beside the residents in the leafy eastern suburbs. Will it be shoved out in the volcanic plains on the suburban border of my electorate in Tarneit? How late will the Leader of the Opposition’s nuclear pipedream come online? Will it be seven years late like the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in the US, or will be over 12 years late like the plant in Flamanville in France?

With nuclear power, nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants there are significant moments in history where we have seen how incredibly dangerous and volatile they can be. In fact we had the member for Bulleen stand up, I believe it was last year, and speak on this. He actually gave a really, really good speech on this subject and spoke about Chernobyl. But there are so many more examples than just that. I have had the pleasure to travel to New York, and not just New York City but a little bit further north, up near Peekskill and Yonkers and a couple of other places. There have been a couple of nuclear power plants in history along the Hudson River there and one at Indian Point. In 2005 there was an incident there, and over 200 gallons of radioactive water ended up in the Hudson River. Think about that: over 200 gallons of radioactive water into the Hudson River. Imagine what that does to that ecosystem there in New York.

We are talking about a nuclear power plant in a place like Anglesea. Where are we going to store the nuclear waste? We are talking about a nuclear power plant adjacent to pristine ocean, incredibly close to the Otway National Park. What are we going to do, build a pipeline from the power plant there near the old coal-fired power station and, what, just put a pipeline for nuclear waste out into the ocean? I mean, it is absolutely absurd. In fact in New York only last year the state required legislation to stop company Holtec from dumping radioactive waste into the Hudson River from that decommissioning Indian Point power plant. Is this the sort of environmental vandalism that we would like to import into Australia? That is the question for those opposite.

Another really important point is: how much will this cost? How much will the Leader of the Opposition’s expensive nuclear fantasy run over budget? Will it be $25 billion like Vogtle or –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on standing order 118, again the claims that are being made by the member on his feet are attaching attribution of something which the Leader of the Opposition has not in fact asserted, and the member on his feet is in fact attaching attribution to something which is simply not true. So again, under standing order 118 regarding imputations and personal reflections, if the member on his feet wishes to cast imputations upon the Leader of the Opposition, he is very welcome to do so but by a substantive motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member, if I understood it correctly, was referring to another member who is not in this house, and therefore it is a matter for debate.

Brad Rowswell: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I clearly heard the member for Tarneit refer to the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore I respectfully reassert my point of order to you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, my recollection was it was a federal member that was being referred to, not a member of this Assembly. Therefore it is a matter of debate.

Dylan WIGHT: Where was I? Will it run $25 billion over like Vogtle, or will it run $30 billion over like Hinkley Point C in Somerset in the United Kingdom?

To understand the disregard of those opposite for Australia’s environment, health and safety, you only need to look at their party’s track record when it comes to nuclear. I was not born in 1958, but there was some nuclear testing that happened at Maralinga in South Australia. The royal commission into the nuclear testing at Maralinga found that then Liberal Party Prime Minister Robert Menzies had approved the English nuclear tests without first receiving independent Australian scientific advice on the hazards to humans or the environment. The Australian federal cabinet at the time was kept in the dark by Menzies about key aspects of the nuclear tests, and the atomic test agreement by the two governments was done in retrospect after the first test had even occurred. Australia was forced to accept UK assurances on the safety and likely fallout, lifespan and hazards of the atomic tests, without an independent scientific assessment.

I think it is incredibly important when we talk about these issues to think about history and to go down memory lane with respect to those issues and the blatant disregard – flagrant disregard – for Australia’s environment and Australia’s safety that is right there in the history of the Liberal Party. It also serves as a really healthy reminder as to how dangerous this technology is. Over 60 years after Maralinga the vegetation is still cleared in a 1-kilometre radius around the site, and the ground is so sterile that it is still impossible for plants to grow. The highly reactive radioactive particles in the soil can also leach into the soil and groundwater, which are then absorbed by plants, wildlife and humans. This is a really clear example, on our own soil, of how incredibly destructive and dangerous nuclear material is, and it was a Liberal Party Prime Minister all the way back then that did this to that area.

I would also consider the Runit dome nuclear waste site in the US Marshall Islands. This concrete dome covers a pit which contains over 87,800 cubic metres of radioactive waste left behind by the US military after World War II. This site is at sea level – pretty similar to what a nuclear plant would be anywhere around Australia, because they are on coastlines – and it is only metres away from the Pacific Ocean. The concrete dome is chipping and cracking, risking plutonium leakage into the Pacific Ocean and contaminating the food and water of locals in the Enewetak Atoll. Just imagine the additional compounding risk then caused by global warming and sea level rise. Just imagine all sorts of these nuclear containments leaking into our ocean and environment. It is not just the nuclear power plant or reactor itself that poses the risk, it is also the storage of the material after the fact. There are significant examples, several examples just like this one, of why this is such a bad idea and should not even be considered by any sensible government in this country.

This is the sort of risk that those opposite want to bring onto our shores. Are those opposite really willing to condemn the beautiful Surf Coast to this type of nuclear risk – either the Surf Coast or the Latrobe Valley? There has been recent research done that I think says it is pretty clear that the residents in these areas do not want this risk either. Why would you? Are those opposite really willing to place a nuclear reactor right next to the pristine and unique temperate rainforests around Anglesea and so close to the Great Otway –

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again, I have been listening quite closely to the member for Tarneit, and the assertion that he is making is simply factually untrue. I therefore again highlight to you standing order 118. The claims made by the member for Tarneit are in fact wrong, and he should not be making them. If he chooses to make them, he is welcome to, but again, only by substantive motion.

Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, in support of the member for Tarneit, what the member for Tarneit is bringing to this house is factually correct. He is reflecting on comments made by people in this house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the risk of repeating the Speaker from earlier today, it is not the Speaker’s job to tell you exactly what to say or judge it. The member is within the rules of debate.

Dylan WIGHT: Do those opposite really want to create such an untenable climate risk with the storage of nuclear waste in our state? Whose land are they willing to poison? I know I will certainly stand up against those opposite if they ever determine to place toxic nuclear waste anywhere near my electorate in Tarneit or the Werribee River catchment. I would like to see a show of hands from those opposite who would not do the same. Who among those in the Liberal Party room would like to store that nuclear waste in their own communities?

A member: Send it to Bev; she will have it.

Dylan WIGHT: Yes, probably. It is a horrible idea. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.