Wednesday, 15 November 2023

Bills

Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of David Limbrick:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:48): I am pleased to rise and speak on Mr Limbrick’s bill to repeal the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 – the act that guarantees that Victoria does not play a part in the nuclear fuel cycle, that we do not have facilities to support a nuclear industry here in Victoria and that we do not produce nuclear power here in Victoria. It is an important piece of legislation – just as important as it was when it was passed 40 years ago.

I thought I would begin my contribution to today’s debate by reflecting on the reasons that the then responsible minister, the Minister for Minerals and Energy the Honourable David White, spoke of when he made a contribution in this very chamber on 9 December 1982. In moving the second reading of the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Bill, as obviously it was then before its passage, Minister White at the time opened his remarks by reflecting on the terrible legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I do not think that is going to be the focus of the contributions today, I do think we should start by remembering those who died at the hands of atomic weapons at the end of the Second World War in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which in the words of the minister at the time showed the world ‘the destructive potential of nuclear energy’.

The minister’s second-reading speech goes on to talk about other matters associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and particularly nuclear power. I think the words that he said at the time, 40 years ago, are as salient today as they were when they were first spoken in this chamber, so I would like to read some of them out:

The development of nuclear power reactors was originally held out as offering the promise of convenient, cheap, and plentiful electricity. However, experience so far has been otherwise. Reactors have been proved to be very expensive, difficult to locate in the face of public opposition, and there is the unresolved matter of waste disposal and attendant problems. In addition, there is the problem that the growth in the number of reactors has increased the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation through the wider spread of nuclear technology and the risk of nuclear materials being diverted for weapons purposes.

The minister went on to say:

Beyond these considerations is the complex matter of safety. The reactors themselves have proven to be technically difficult to operate, and prone to minor mishaps …

I will pause here and just reflect that these comments were made before Chernobyl demonstrated to the world the problems of nuclear meltdown in nuclear energy facilities. Several years before Chernobyl, the minister in this place was talking about these reactors being:

… prone to minor mishaps which can threaten to cause disastrous accidents.

The minister then went on to say that:

… a strong body of public opinion has developed opposed to the establishment of a nuclear industry here.

He said:

This opinion finds expression in all political parties and in all sectors of the community. The Labor Party has for some time held to a policy of opposition to the development of nuclear activities in Victoria and it is interesting to note that the previous Liberal Government –

so that was the Thompson Liberal government –

also recorded its opposition to the establishment of either nuclear reactors or enrichment facilities.

The minister’s second-reading speech – I will not quote it in full – does go on to describe the various elements of the bill, which was introduced to do a range of things, including prohibiting exploration and mining for uranium or thorium, the construction and operation of nuclear reactors and facilities for milling uranium or thorium or concentrates, the storage or disposal of nuclear fuel, and the possession, sale and transport of certain nuclear material. It made consequential amendments to other acts, including the State Electricity Commission Act 1958, to prevent the introduction of nuclear energy into our energy mix.

The remarks of the minister in 1982 are relevant to today’s debate because the fundamental issues that the Cain Labor government was concerned about in 1982 relating to both the efficacy of nuclear power and the safety of the nuclear industry and its attendant problems have not gone away. On the effluxion of time, it is interesting to note from a scientific perspective that the passage of 40 years has very little relevance to the nuclear fuel cycle, because the half-life of these products is much, much longer, and the danger and the destruction that nuclear fuel and nuclear energy and nuclear waste bring span greater periods than just 40 years. They do not only span our lifetimes; they span multiple generations. It is not something that we can lightly think of removing – the important prohibition against Victoria’s participation in the nuclear industry, the nuclear fuel cycle, the creation of nuclear energy and the storage of nuclear waste. Those remarks and that legislation are as important today as they were 40 years ago, and we must oppose all attempts to remove the prohibition on nuclear energy here in Victoria and other sorts of activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and be steadfast in our opposition.

I will come to the reasons why, but I think it is fundamentally important that none of the reasons why a former Labor government moved the bill for the act that is sought to be repealed today have changed. In fact over time many of them have become even more stark. Simply wishing away the problems of the nuclear industry does not make it better. Denying the problems of nuclear power does not make it safe. We do not need to look very far back to see the consequences of the dangers of the use of nuclear energy in our fuel cycle, and I will come to the devastating effects that the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant had a little over a decade ago. We do not need to go back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we do not need to just remember what happened at Three Mile Island and we do not need to just remember what happened at Chernobyl. This century we have had problems with nuclear energy and the devastating consequences it has. This is a problem for today. This legislation is as important today as it was 40 years ago when this Parliament had the good sense to pass the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Bill 1983. I might say it was a Parliament that the Labor Party did not control; this chamber was not under the Labor Party’s purview at the time of its passage.

David Davis: Until ’85.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Correct. I remember that very well, but I am not going to get distracted by nuclear issues like that, Mr Davis. What I want to do is go through some of the issues as to why it is important to maintain our prohibition on nuclear power and nuclear energy and participation in the nuclear fuel cycle and debunk some of the dangerous myths that are being peddled by the proponents of nuclear energy in the wider community – and we may see it in the course of this debate.

The first one is about the cost of nuclear energy. People should not make any mistakes, nuclear power will mean higher power bills for Victorians for two simple basic facts: nuclear energy has higher costs to build the reactors and the nuclear power plants, and those nuclear power plants are then more expensive to run on a day-to-day basis. So the proponents of nuclear energy have got to come into this place and explain to us why we should be shouldering generations of Victorians with higher power prices because of a fantasy they have that somehow nuclear energy is a solution to the climate crisis. We have seen independent evidence presented, like the findings of the South Australian government’s recent royal commission into the nuclear industry, which found quite clearly that nuclear power simply was not viable in that state because it was too expensive. We have seen it internationally with the development of nuclear energy and nuclear power stations, notably the Hinkley nuclear reactor in the United Kingdom, which is at this stage – 11 years since it was first announced – still not built and billions and billions of pounds over budget, costs that the British consumers of that energy will be paying for generations thereafter. Nuclear power means higher power bills, and proponents of nuclear power need to explain why they support higher power bills for ordinary Victorians.

The other thing – and I briefly mention this – is that nuclear reactors for nuclear power are expensive to build and take an inordinate amount of time to get off the ground. It is not an answer to the problems that we are facing as part of our energy transition. If people are worried about energy security here in Victoria and if people are concerned that there will not be enough power when the ageing coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley come to the end of their life, nuclear is not an answer to that problem. Because even if we thought it was a good idea and even if we started on the dangerous nuclear energy path today, those coal-powered plants would be long gone before the nuclear power came online. They are not a solution to that problem.

The third thing I will say is that there is this kind of fantasy being peddled now by the nuclear industry that somehow we have got new technology that is going to fix all of these problems. Even if you accept that it took too long and was too costly to build the nuclear reactors of yore, of old, suddenly we have got brand new technology – these small, modular reactors that are sweeping the world and somehow transforming nuclear energy across the world. Well, they are a chimera. They are a mirage. They do not exist, and people who peddle small modular reactors as the solution to our energy transition are charlatans.

There are a couple of things I will say about small modular reactors. People might not have picked it up in the name, but a small modular reactor is small. Let us do a point of comparison. A small modular reactor, if they existed, would have the capacity to generate around 300 megawatts of power. Loy Yang A, which is what some people are saying these nuclear reactors could replace, currently generates 2200 megawatts of electricity – 2.2 gigawatts. Small modular reactors generate 300 megawatts, so you would need eight small nuclear reactors to replace Loy Yang A. You would need eight or nine to replace the energy that is proposed to be brought into the grid by the Star of the South, for example. The question we have got is should we build one new offshore wind facility or eight nuclear reactors? That is the comparison that we should be making.

I say that is a comparison that we should be making, but it is not a real comparison, because, unlike things like the offshore wind industry and other renewable projects, small modular reactors, small nuclear reactors, do not exist. There is not one that works anywhere in the world – nowhere. When people come in and say, ‘Oh, they’re the solution. Small nuclear reactors are the solution’, they cannot point to one that exists, because there is not one anywhere in the world. Only last week one of the projects designed to demonstrate just how fantastic small modular reactors are, in the United States, collapsed, fell over, was cancelled. Just to read you some of the headlines – I probably do not have time to go through all of the articles – this is from the Guardian: ‘Small modular nuclear reactor that was hailed by Coalition as future cancelled due to rising costs’. In the Australian Financial Review: ‘Flagship US nuclear reactor project collapses owing taxpayers $930m’. In the Sydney Morning Herald: ‘US reactor project fail heats up Australia’s nuclear power debate’. I do not think it does heat up Australia’s nuclear power debate; I think it puts it to bed.

Interestingly, if you read the article in some depth, these projects were only sustainable because of the massive government subsidies that they were receiving. When people come into this chamber and decry the amount of money that governments give to industry in what some people would call forms of corporate welfare, what we see from the experience in the United States is that the solutions that they advocate are only sustained by the very subsidies that they decry, and then the projects fall over and there is nothing left to be seen. Small nuclear reactors are not real, they are imaginary. They do not exist, and they should not be taken seriously in any debate about what to do with our energy transition.

I have mentioned briefly the problems with nuclear energy and nuclear power, but they should be worth remembering, because if we are to have eight nuclear reactors built here in Victoria to replace Loy Yang A or as an alternative to Star of the South, my question simply is to those who argue they are a good idea: where should we put them? Who is putting their hand up to have a nuclear reactor in their community? I hear stunning silence from across the chamber, because no-one is putting their hand up to have nuclear power in their backyard. No-one is putting their hand up to have one nuclear reactor in their community, let alone eight – eight – nuclear reactors that we would need to replace the power that is coming out of Loy Yang A or the power that could be going into our grid by something like the Star of the South offshore wind project. So people who propose nuclear reactors need to tell us where they are going to go. Mostly we know that they need to be in places that are near water, because what is one of the things that nuclear reactors need in order to generate nuclear energy? They need water.

Harriet Shing: Not just a little bit.

Ryan BATCHELOR: And not just a little bit, says the Minister for Water, with a very helpful interjection – not just a little bit. They need large volumes of water to participate in the cooling of the reactors and to generate the power that people claim is so lucrative, which they bring. So my next question is: where is the water coming from? There are two sources of water that we can use in the production of nuclear energy. We can use seawater, which requires vast amounts of additional power to desalinate in order to put it into the reactors –

Harriet Shing: Something they’ve opposed.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Desalination – something that has been opposed but also something that takes up a large part of the output of the nuclear reactor. So you set up these nuclear reactors – eight of them – in various locations across the state. If they are on the coast, which is where the sea is, I do not know which coastal communities you are saying need to have nuclear reactors next to their –

Harriet Shing: Brighton.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Maybe. Who knows? Beach boxes, nuclear reactor – who would have thought? But a lot of that energy is then tied up in making sure they can actually use the water to produce the remainder of power.

Of course the second source of water that we did not have to desalinate would need to come from agricultural production. My question to those who participate in this debate is: what are you telling the farmers? What are you telling the irrigators, who would have to have their water for agricultural production diverted into these nuclear power plants? They are the people who will end up paying the most for this, because you cannot just turn these plants off. You cannot decide in five years, ‘Actually, we don’t have as much water as we used to. There have been some climatic changes which have reduced the amount of rainfall and reduced the amount of water available now in our environment. We don’t have enough to both sustain our nuclear power plant and irrigate our crops. Can we switch it off, please?’ Unfortunately you cannot. You cannot turn them off. They are there for all of their life. If you divert the water away from these nuclear power plants, they melt down, like what happened in Chernobyl and like what happened at Three Mile Island. Then suddenly these communities are not just left with more expensive power, they are left with a radioactive landscape. That is the future that you are proposing. That is the future that could await if the nuclear prohibitions act is repealed.

The other, and probably last, point that I will make – so that others have a chance to contribute to this debate – is that in addition to the eight small nuclear reactors that we would need to build here in Victoria, we still do not have a solution for our radioactive waste, for our nuclear waste. That is the other question that people have got to ask and answer: where are you going to put the radioactive waste that you generate from these facilities?

Again, no-one in the course of this debate who gets up and advocates for nuclear power is willing to put their hand up and say, ‘I want a radioactive waste dump, a nuclear waste dump, in our community.’ None of the people participating in this debate are willing to do that. If we generate nuclear energy in Victoria, we should have the waste in our state – but we do not even have it in Australia. There is no national radioactive waste management facility anywhere in the country, despite decades of trying to get there. But of course if we are using small nuclear reactors, they actually produce more waste. So not only do they use our drinking water, and not only do you need more of them, but if they existed, they would actually generate between two, three, maybe 10 times as much radioactive waste because of the methods that they use to enrich the uranium and make the reactions than other sorts of nuclear energy facilities. Again, where does the waste go? In whose communities will it sit? Those are the questions we need answered in the course of this debate – if people are willing to do it.

There are enormous numbers of reasons why nuclear energy is a bad idea for everyone, and especially why nuclear energy is a bad idea for Victoria. There is a choice – it is always good to have choices in politics, because they are pretty stark. This government has a plan to transition our energy mix towards renewable energy. We think the future is renewable, not radioactive, and we have got a plan to generate more renewable energy here in Victoria. Not only do we have a plan, we are actually doing it, and I am sure that others in the course of this debate and others in the course of other debates have demonstrated quite clearly just how far Victoria has come, with the most rapidly decarbonising energy system in the nation, smashing our renewable energy targets and taking carbon out of our electricity generation. What we should not replace it with is something like radioactive materials that are thirsty for our agricultural water for a lifetime and that have got radioactive waste that we do not know what to do with.

All the while, if all of those problems were not bad enough, what Victorians would be left with is higher power bills forever. That is the choice: cheaper renewables or more expensive radioactive energy. Unless people can come into this chamber in the course of this debate and tell people where the eight nuclear reactors are going to go, where the radioactive waste dump is going to be located and where the water is coming from to make it all work, they cannot be taken seriously. Nuclear power is dangerous, it is expensive, and it should not be part of Victoria’s future.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:13): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this debate on the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023, and I compliment Mr Limbrick on bringing this bill to the chamber. It is a private members bill, and it follows the work of an inquiry by the Legislative Council’s Environment and Planning Committee during the last Parliament. That inquiry I think had a variety of different points made by different members who were part of it, so to that extent, the inquiry itself was inconclusive. I note the minority report of Mr Limbrick, Mrs McArthur and Dr Bach, which did support a repeal of that act. We have heard about the 1983 period and the promulgation of the act. I would argue that a great deal has changed since then, and I will explain that as we proceed.

The Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 does much more than prohibit nuclear reactors. It actually has a whole set of consequences that go much further than the nuclear power cycle. There are two distinct questions here. The first distinct question is whether you think at some point a safe nuclear energy approach could be adopted, and that is a point that many will have different views on and different debates. I make one point in response to Mr Batchelor’s point about small mobile reactors and so forth: they are exactly the sort of reactor that exists on the submarines that the Australian state has actually indicated we will use and take part in. They are very similar, the small modular reactors. They are not dissimilar, and they are actually in the mode of these sorts of steps. However, I accept that there is a legitimate debate about the viability of a nuclear industry. I think there are some who say it is viable and others who say it is not. There are also, through this act and its restrictions, a number of unintended consequences, and I will come to those in a moment.

Let me just make some comments about the impact of blocking out any options in this area. Most of the regulations, as people will understand, are actually Commonwealth in this field. Most of the decisions around regulation of nuclear energy and nuclear activities are actually Commonwealth – not all. The Radiation Act 2005 – I am a former health minister and I am well aware of it. I am somebody who actually had a radiation licence once upon a time. I am well aware of the aspects that are regulated by the states, but most of the regulation is actually done by the Commonwealth. To a great extent this act is duplicative of much of the Commonwealth material. It blocks out the prospect, even at a future point or where significant hurdles are cleared, of a nuclear approach to energy generation, which may well be feasible in the relatively near future even if you do not believe it is feasible now. Let us just be clear that there is a legitimate debate about that at the moment.

Let me be clear about people’s interest in potential nuclear power, because many of the good and supported approaches that use renewables – there are several points here – do not always produce the reliable power that we need in terms of certainty and predictability of supply, so base load or firming power of some type may well be needed as we go forward. We know that there are challenges and issues with respect to the decline of brown coal and the viability and life of our current power plants. There is an acceptance I think more broadly that we will move to a position where we are seeking to lower emissions significantly in line with international arrangements, and in fact –

Harriet Shing: International arrangements – we’re setting the pace.

David DAVIS: Well, you’re not, actually. You are actually struggling is the truth of the matter, but that is another point. I am just talking about the general direction here. Let us be clear: there are international agreements, and there is a broad acceptance that there will need to be lower emissions. That will mean more use of renewables and more use of a range of those technologies: wind and solar and related. But there will also need to be firming power. There will also need to be reliable supplies that can actually assist. Batteries will have a role, but currently they are struggling to provide the scale that is needed for that firming. That is one reason why we see the likelihood of a significant role for gas into the future. There are also other mechanisms. Snowy Hydro – the costs have blown out, but the concept of a storage system is important. I am just laying out some general principles here, and nuclear may well have a role in that field. If small modular reactors are able to be brought forward in the near future in a way that is useful, that is a reasonable prospect if the safety standards can be met. And they are largely controlled by the federal government.

In that sense, if I can also then turn to the other clear point I want to make, there are a number of unintended consequences from the nuclear prohibition act, and these could not have been foreseen, to be fair, in 1983. I am going to enumerate three of them as important ones. The AUKUS deal and defence-related matters may well see industry that is able to be developed in this state, certainly within this country, and if Victoria has a blanket ban on any nuclear activities at all, it will mean that we are not able to participate in that enormous potential defence option. So with this act nobody was thinking about this in 1983 – I get that – but actually today –

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: Well, we did have some renewables then. We did have hydro. But let me just be quite clear: the AUKUS opportunities, potentially significant defence industries, will be completely and utterly counted out if the government or the state does not take some sensible steps in this regard. It is also true that some of the space industries that require the use of concentrated levels of radioactive materials will be counted out as well. That is another industry that should not be counted out and should not be blocked through an unintended consequence of this bill.

Harriet Shing: You don’t believe what you’re saying, Mr Davis.

David DAVIS: I sure do. And finally, the minerals approach that could be taken by this state to build downstream industries with a number of the key rare earths and other minerals should not be counted out. At the moment the act explicitly counts out the development of those industries, it prevents the development of those industries. I am going to read here from the Minerals Council of Australia, who have sent me a significant amount of material in recent days.

David Ettershank: What a surprise!

David DAVIS: Well, they are actually the ones that develop minerals, to be clear. Not surprising, is it? So you would talk to that industry to understand the impact on that industry. If you did not talk to that industry, you might not have the understanding that is required. Their communication to me on 10 November made the following points:

The Act impacts not just potential uranium mining –

so that is energy that we were talking about a minute ago –

but the potential for value-adding and processing of minerals and mineral products essential for other vital zero emissions energy technologies including wind and solar and battery storage in which Australia is looking to play major supply chain roles.

So there is a strong argument that unless we actually have a clear and unequivocal signal that we are prepared to allow some of those mineral industries to not just extract the rare earths and the mineral sands but export them, we will not be able to develop or at any point in the future have the option of developing a processing or downstream industry. The truth is if you concentrate these minerals the radioactivity will mean that this act is triggered. You cannot transport materials if this act is triggered. You cannot process materials if this act is triggered. So this act is a straight and clear blocker.

Now, you might argue that some exemptions could be provided, and theoretically that is possible, but it is not at all clear that they would be, and it is not at all clear that there is a sensible way forward here. The truth of the matter is that the signal provided by this act means that no large firm is going to consider the idea of a processing facility here. So I want to be clear about this bill: this bill seeks to repeal the nuclear prohibitions act from 1983. There is an energy component to this and a debate –

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: We are indicating that we do support the repeal of the act and we support it for a number of reasons, and I am laying them out quite clearly. There is a potential for small modular reactors at some future point, and I am not counting that out, but I am making the clearest point that there are three areas where the bill prohibits – clearly prohibits – the development of other industries.

Now, these were not, as I say, intended or focused on at the time of the act passing in 1983. In fact some of these are quite new industries. Nobody had considered AUKUS in 1983. Nobody had considered Australia, the UK and the United States signing a defence agreement that would provide nuclear-powered submarines to the Australian navy and the consequent supplier industries, the consequent support industries and the consequent management of those submarines – the supply and support and related industries. So if we want to count Victoria out from having any role there, the best way to do that is to keep this act clamped to stop us having that role.

If we want to move to a situation where our significant mineral sands and deposits can be fully maximised for the state – and I do not just mean the extraction of those mineral sands; I mean potential longer term downstream processing industries – we want those downstream processing industries. They are banned under this act now. Let us be quite clear: they are banned; you cannot do them here, because you cannot concentrate those minerals in a way that would see the radiation levels rise. You cannot even transport those materials lawfully. So if we want the option of downstream mineral sands processing, rare earths and others that are in huge supply – we know that there is at least one processing plant in Western Australia, but most of the processing of these mineral sands is done in China – if we want to have a more independent process here, where actually our mineral sands are processed in Victoria or in Australia, we actually need to be thinking about how we can change this act and get rid of these impediments when that is an obvious focus for us into the future.

I want to be quite clear here. We have very clear correspondence. I have spoken to a number of people in the minerals industry, and they are quite clear about the impact of the restrictions in this act on any development of mineral sands processing in Victoria. It is counted out. You cannot do it. This act blocks it. These are very reasonable points. I understand the attitudes in 1983, and nobody in 1983 was thinking about defence in this way. Nobody was thinking about space industries, and nobody in 1983 was thinking about the processing of mineral sands for a whole range of new products, whether they be the issues around renewable energy, mobile phones or all of the other issues for which rare earths are important now and into the future.

So we want a sensible way forward. We think that this act is too restrictive, and in that context we see that there is a logical way forward to remove the act and allow the Commonwealth to regulate some of these areas. The state would regulate the prospecting and other steps in the normal way for things like mineral sands, and if a production industry was established here, that would be regulated and controlled with the normal environmental standards that you would expect for any such processing industry. But it would not be counted out automatically, permanently and totally as this current act does at the moment.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (16:29): I rise on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria to make a brief contribution to the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023. Can I start by commending Mr Batchelor on his thoughtful and passionate contribution. While this bill would not of itself allow for the construction or operation of nuclear reactors in Victoria, it would send a message that Victoria is welcoming a nuclear future with open arms. This bill would open the doors and invite in the vampires of the nuclear industry. I struggle to think of a class of elements that has caused more acute devastation for humans than nuclear materials. History unequivocally shows us that when humans get nuclear wrong, we get it catastrophically wrong. In an unpredictable and changing environment it is impossible to get it 100 per cent right all the time. Let us be clear: climate change is the biggest collective threat we face, but nuclear power is not the answer.

As I have already alluded to, when we get nuclear power wrong, we create wastelands, which in extreme cases remain uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. The exclusion zone around Pripyat, the township home to the Chernobyl power plant, will remain unsafe for human habitation for more than 20,000 years. The extreme levels of radiation in the environment have caused extensive biological mutations to the flora and fauna in and around Pripyat, fundamentally changing the course of that environment forever. Then there is the elephant of the room, or rather what is called the elephant’s foot, resting under what was reactor 4 at Chernobyl. It is the most radioactive object on the planet, a literal hotspot comprising elements that previously formed the reactor’s core and concrete containment structure. The elephant’s foot is so dangerous that there remains no way to safely contain it.

Past catastrophic failures such as Chernobyl are often wiped off or disregarded as poorly designed systems or operator failure. However, it is important to remember that the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan operated what was considered prior to 2011 one of the best engineered and maintained reactors in the world.

Ryan Batchelor: Whoops.

David ETTERSHANK: Yes – oops! That is an inconvenient reality, isn’t it. Volatility makes radioactive materials an incredibly efficient energy source, but it also creates extreme risk with even the slightest alteration to their correct containment or use. As much as we try as a species to control every variable of a situation, we simply cannot, and we will never be able to control every variable in the containment or use of these highly radioactive materials. The extreme earthquake and tsunami that caused the triple meltdown in Fukushima in 2011 should be the only deterrent we need from promoting nuclear proliferation of any form anywhere in Australia. These melted-down reactors will continue to have hundreds of thousands of litres of water pumped through them every day for years, for decades, possibly for centuries, and the exclusion zone around the plant will remain uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. As Mr Batchelor quite correctly identified, where is this water going to come from?

I also would suggest that the very real challenge that is put up to the proponents of this bill is where will these reactors, where will these storage facilities, be? I would love to see someone put up their hand and say, ‘Yes, our electorate will have it. We’d be delighted to. What a great opportunity.’ Of course we would not want to hold our breath waiting, because it is not going to happen.

I will just go back to a little bit about the industry. Even as recently as March this year a power plant in Minnesota leaked 400,000 gallons of radioactive reactor coolant water into the surrounding environment. These are real things happening in real time. It is pointless pretending that they are not there, that they do not exist, and yet this bill seems to do just that. But I digress.

These are all examples of international catastrophes. How lucky we are not to have to live in fear of the conventional reactor in the next town melting down. But let us talk about small reactors. Let us talk about the nuclear proponents’ latest buzz about the small modular reactors, or SMRs, and their being put forward as the answer to the downfalls of conventional reactors. This proposition is deeply misguided. SMRs are often touted by advocates as being safer, cheaper and cleaner in terms of radioactive waste produced. Of course not all nuclear reactors are created equal, and while some designs come closer to reaching these lofty expectations, none of them quite do. Studies have found that SMRs are highly expensive, slow to come online, have higher rates of neutron leakage and often produce more radioactive waste than their conventional counterparts. They are also typically five to 10 times as expensive per megawatt generated than renewable alternatives, even after allowing for the provision of storage.

Let us also recognise that Australia seemingly cannot find a way to correctly store even low-level medical nuclear waste, as the recently scrapped Kimba facility shows. Let us be honest: nobody wants a nuclear waste dump in their region, let alone their backyard, least of all one that needs to safely store depleted but still highly radioactive plutonium for thousands and thousands of years. So how could we expect to run a safe nuclear power industry or introduce and safely manage a new technology like SMRs? Apart from this bill being fundamentally flawed, it would send a message that Victoria is pro nuclear. I would hope that our collective memories are good enough to remember the events leading Australia to become an antinuclear state and why it should remain as such.

Before I conclude, I want to pick up Mr Davis’s point about mining. This bill seeks to allow for the extraction of principally thorium and uranium in Victoria. Aside from these practices being highly environmentally degrading, Victoria has almost no significant uranium deposits and, comparative to the rest of the continent, a tiny amount of thorium deposits. We do not need to get too tied up on environmental issues if that is going to cause problems – just let the economics of the industry point out to us that this is dead on arrival. I struggle to understand the rationale for creating another extractive industry in Victoria for such a small amount of resources – which would inevitably be shipped overseas – further degrading our environment. For Mr Davis to suggest that Victoria will be a downstream processor of radioactive materials is fanciful. This is neither financially viable nor environmentally desirable.

To conclude, we will not be supporting this bill. And we will never, ever support any attempt to turn Victoria into a nuclear state.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:38): I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023, introduced by David Limbrick of the Libertarian Party, and I congratulate him for bringing it forward. I have been in favour of nuclear energy for years and do not subscribe to the out-of-date, cold war mentality that still pervades some quarters here in this place –

Members interjecting.

Bev McARTHUR: Absolutely. That is the mentality you subscribe to, you lot; you are so out of date. You will want to look at the latest opinion polls on this. Even young people think that we should have a nuclear industry in this country. You are absolutely out of date.

I support the bill for several reasons. It enables the approval of exploration and mining for uranium and thorium in Victoria under and subject to the requirements of both state and federal legislation. It creates Victorian investment and job opportunities in the Australian space industry with the Australian government and aims to grow it to a market size of $12 billion by 2030.

It allows Victoria, this state, to participate in the defence industry – otherwise you lot will shut it out – partnerships from the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal worth billions of dollars. It is a step towards national recognition that nuclear energy is the cheapest and most reliable zero-emission clean energy source of minimal impact. It is inevitable – let alone the rare-earth and critical minerals issue. While the moratorium does not prevent exploration and mining to occur, it does mean that the act triggers processing problems, and repealing the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 will help provide certainty to the rare-earth and critical minerals industry.

Mr Limbrick has already explained how this bill creates extraordinary opportunities in Victoria. I would like to complement his contribution by talking about what has changed in the energy landscape and why the arguments in favour of nuclear generation are now stronger than they were a few years ago. While of course the technology is still developing and the advent of small modular reactors is extremely promising, what has actually changed most in recent years is the revelation of how limited our low-carbon alternatives really are. Although most of this has become clear in the last couple of years at most, I feel I should also note that some of us have been alert to it for quite some time.

In the minority report authored by Mr Limbrick, Dr Bach and me and published in November 2020, the cosignatories noted that:

There are serious challenges in decarbonising electricity production and excluding nuclear technology means that we cannot explore the advantages it yields, such as small land use, low carbon intensity, high level of safety, and extremely long infrastructure lifespan.

Importantly and more relevantly in Victoria, we wrote:

Whilst a social license would need to be obtained for usage of nuclear technologies, it is also unknown whether a social license exists for some of the infrastructure required for large scale variable renewable technologies. There is already resistance to new transmission infrastructure required for variable renewable energy technologies, which may be amplified further if large scale pumped hydroelectric dams are also required. This may be a step too far for some communities.

I am energy technology agnostic. We need to increase supply in this country, not reduce it. You lot have reduced energy supply in this country, and you are dependent on one source. Open your minds to the variety of sources that are available. The minority report concludes:

… the desirability of nuclear energy in Victoria cannot be meaningfully considered while the legislative ban on nuclear energy remains in place. The substantive report makes it plain that a business case cannot be mounted while the ban remains. A business case would be necessary to enable an assessment of Victoria’s nuclear energy potential.

So what are the problems with other forms of low-carbon energy, which make nuclear even more attractive – perhaps even essential if net zero remains the political dogma that we have to embrace? In theory it is easy to build renewables, but practice and recent developments are making them less and less attractive. Onshore wind faces enormous challenges with noise complaints, where legal action continues, and environmental issues. The Willatook wind farm precedent widens turbine-free buffer zones for brolgas and bats, reducing the output and financial viability. The five-month moratorium on construction throughout the brolga breeding season blindsided the industry and has been described as a death knell to wind energy development.

Offshore wind is struggling too. The impact on marine ecosystems, including on whales, is receiving even more coverage, as is the impact on construction and the ongoing consequences for fisheries. We have seen significant public protest against offshore proposals, and now the South Australian government’s decision is to oppose them.

The grid implications are immense. Satisfying 95 per cent renewables will require brand new transmission network infrastructure – 10,000 kilometres of new transmission wires across this country, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). One of the many reasons for my support for nuclear power is the fact that it fits better with our existing transmission infrastructure. In my view, if we give proper weight to environmental consequences of transmission as well as generation, then technologies which can re-use the existing grid would become greatly more attractive. The problem we have at present is that the impacts of generation and of transmission are considered separately. Worse still, analysis of transmission line impact has until recently taken account only of the wire and poles construction and maintenance cost, not the enormous economic, environmental, health and social cost.

The inadequacy of the current grid is already causing a crash in investment in renewables in Victoria. Recent modelling by AEMO shows that this year 29 per cent of wind generation and 25 per cent of large-scale solar generation in the Western Victoria and Murray River renewable energy zones respectively will be wasted due to inadequate transmission capacity. Institutional investors will not pay to see these assets stand idle. So you can talk about your net zero proposal with renewables but it will not happen, because it has become so difficult to invest in this state.

Nor should land usage be forgotten. This is another respect in which nuclear is impossible to beat. You might think it does not matter, that space is not a premium in our country, but you would be wrong. It is hard to exaggerate the vast transformation of Victoria which would be required to adhere to a 95 per cent renewables target provided by onshore wind and solar. Fortunately, we do not need to. Instead I can quote the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, now the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, which published its Offshore Wind Policy Directions Paper in March 2022. On page 19, figure 7 states that to achieve the 60 gigawatts of generation needed for the state’s 95 per cent renewable energy target using only onshore wind and solar would require up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land. The government itself says 60 gigawatts of electrical generation will be required for energy decarbonisation, yet DEECA’s own commitment to offshore wind is just 4 gigawatts by 2035 and then 9 gigawatts by 2040. That leaves an enormous gap to 60 gigawatts, one which can only be bridged by a massive increase in onshore wind and solar. What on earth is our agricultural sector, indeed our whole state, going to look like then?

There are further systemic challenges to renewables projects which have substantially increased in recent times. One is the increased cost of capital: these are massive projects requiring huge up-front investment. A second is inflation in construction costs, in labour, but also equipment, resources and materials. For all of these reasons it is clear that renewable generation is not the panacea for Victoria’s energy needs. In this perspective nuclear power becomes far more attractive. In contrast it is smaller, has no massive footprint and will not require 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land to be swallowed up. It can be built to take advantage of our existing grid without need for 10,000 kilometres of new powerlines. The environmental benefits are not limited to avoiding the need for a brand new and vast transmission network; they are also evident in the reduction in mining required.

Around the world nuclear is used. I mean, you have talked about the fact that it is so terrible. Then why, as of May 2023, are there 436 nuclear reactors in operation in 32 countries around the world? France has the greatest share of nuclear power in total electricity generation of any country worldwide. In 2022 nuclear energy accounted for 62.6 per cent of France’s total electricity production. In Finland it is 35 per cent. As a result, the two countries in Europe with the lowest electricity prices were Finland and France – the lowest prices in Europe because of nuclear energy. In February 2022 France announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight. As of June 2023 there are 57 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide; 21 are under construction in China. It is totally hypocritical to reject nuclear energy. For heaven’s sake, we export uranium. If it is so evil, so awful, so unconscionable, how dare we export it? After all, we have all signed up to the nuclear submarine AUKUS agreement.

Perhaps even the environmentalists are coming around to it; you want to cotton on to them. Simon Holmes à Court said:

I don’t believe there is a compelling case for Australia’s nuclear ban.

Green icon Greta Thunberg has recently adopted a pro-nuclear stance, arguing that Germany shutting down its nuclear plants was a mistake. Democratic Socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that reducing nuclear power would result in the increased utilisation of dirty hydrocarbons. Others on the left heard the evidence of the inquiry into nuclear prohibition – your own union leaders are in favour of it. Geoff Dyke of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union was supportive. The Australian Workers’ Union was also very supportive. They made fantastic submissions; you should all read them.

We have been brought up terrified of radiation, not realising that we get a dose of radiation every time we eat a banana or stand near a concrete wall. They are ridiculous, the arguments against it. Those who continue to oppose it are hopelessly naive. They believe there is some alternative which can achieve zero carbon at no environmental cost and at reasonable financial cost. Well, that is just not possible; it does not exist. They are all fantasists. We acknowledge that nuclear energy is difficult, it is expensive and it will take time, but you have to lift the ban to open up the discussion on nuclear energy, and Victoria should not be left out of the argument. We know all zero-carbon solutions are expensive, but financially it can work, technically it is possible and the product – consistent base load power – is worth the cost. Dump the moratorium is what I say.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:53): For 20 years the Liberal coalition have slowed, stalled and blocked action on climate change, but now we stand here and the Victorian Liberal Party is calling for opening up for nuclear reactors in Victoria. They are so ideologically opposed to renewables that they want dozens of nuclear reactors to be built around the state. Every major population base would have a nuclear reactor next to it, even though in practice this does not exist anywhere in the world and the cost would be absolutely phenomenal.

To the problem: we accept the problem of climate change and what it is going to do to farmers and their ability to produce food; to our consumers, who will suffer the raised prices; and to our people, our elderly, who will suffer through heatwaves. We have a solution in this country. There is a lot of talking going on about foreign opinions and about other countries and their situations. In this country we are blessed with an abundance of sun, and we have some of the best wind resources in the world. Renewable energy is clean, renewable energy is cheap and renewable energy sees our jobs stay local.

I am not surprised that for 20 years now those opposite, as I have said, have slowed, stalled and blocked action on climate change, specifically in the energy sector. Whether it is the national energy framework that for the last decade has shuffled back and forth with various policies, whether it is action on our natural environment and some the vandalism that has been allowed to occur, whether it is resource extraction and backing our farms being fracked and some other high-emission activities or whether it is vehicle emission standards and trying to slow EVs, we know that for those opposite it is an ideological hatred for action on climate change and it is an ideological hatred for renewables and even for some things like electric vehicles. It is absolutely lost on me. If we brought the two technologies to the market and said, ‘Do you want to use petroleum or do you want to use electricity for something in your car?’, those opposite would prefer to go to the big oil producers.

The biggest oil producers in the world are Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iraqi. Those opposite would rather import what we use to create the energy that moves our vehicles than put our people to work and to pay our farmers to create energy on their land to power our vehicles. They would rather ship it halfway around the world and be exposed to any sort of conflict around the world and blockages of shipping, when Victorians could wake up and see a 10 or 20 per cent jump in their energy costs. I do not understand what goes through the heads of the opposition and why there is this ideological opposition. I cannot even explain it. It is an opposition that is so lost for rationale. They would rather build nuclear reactors than have clean, cheap renewables power this state, even when we know the technology does not exist, even when we know the costs are absolutely exorbitant and even though we have industries galloping along – because we have identified the issue. We have set renewable targets, and we have given industry clear goals that they are working to. We are going to train tens of thousands of people to work in the sector, and we are going to have generations of families supported with industries like offshore wind, which will see $10 billion to $60 billion worth of investment.

I mean, today I was going to ask: where do those opposite stand? We know where they stand. They want nuclear reactors near the population bases of Victoria. They do not care about what it is that people want. They do not care what it is that is best for our people. They want to continue their ideological hatred of renewables and ideological hatred of jobs. I think the coalition really need to stand up and say where they stand on industries like offshore wind. When I speak to business, the biggest impediment to offshore wind is the coalition, because they do not know where the coalition stand. There is this back-pedalling, fearmongering and false information, and they are some of the biggest impediments not only to Victoria’s energy security but also to jobs in this state – jobs for Victorians to work in this space, to let people make money off the generation in this space and to ensure that we are set up not only with the energy that helps us grow and electrify our energy sector but with the energy that ensures those jobs stay right here and support Victorians. That will be my contribution.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (16:59): I rise to speak on the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2023, and I want to thank David Limbrick for introducing this bill and I want to thank all those that have contributed to the debate. Saying the word ‘nuclear’ often raises eyebrows. I remember doing a project on it in primary school and learning about the issues as well as the benefits. The repeal of the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983, in full or in part, would have no effect on the existing Commonwealth prohibitions on the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and construction and operation of certain nuclear facilities, which would continue to apply. However, this change would enable approval of exploration and mining for uranium and thorium in Victoria under and subject to the requirements of both state and federal legislation.

The current act places restrictions on Victoria that do not apply to other states. In Victoria the current act limits any development of a new defence industry connected with the AUKUS agreement, and I know Thales in Bendigo is part of the defence industry and provides significant employment opportunities in the region. A further unintended restriction of the current act is to limit the development of processing of mineral sands derived from Victoria’s current and future mineral sands industry. I met with Gannawarra shire earlier this year with the Leader of the Nationals and local member for Murray Plains Peter Walsh, and locals are excited by the opportunities that exist in the region to grow mineral sands processing.

A further limitation of the act is to restrict any development of nuclear energy. We need secure, reliable and affordable energy in Victoria. Over the last nine years under this Labor state government we have seen power prices increase dramatically for households and businesses. The gas supply is uncertain, prices are increasing and this government’s ban on gas in new homes is making it even harder for families and will add to carbon emissions. Like other countries we should not rule out options, because we need affordable, secure and reliable energy. The federal coalition has moved to open debate on the role for nuclear as part of the future of energy generation in Australia, and we need to explore the options and weigh up the costs and the benefits.

As we look to the future and the growing need for energy, we also need to consider the growing need for food security, not just in Victoria and Australia but around the world. Our agriculture industry is first class. We produce food and fibre and export it around the world. We are the envy of many countries, and we need to care for the rich resources that we have. As we charge ahead with renewables we also need a practical conversation about the social and economic costs of new transmission lines and marking prime agricultural land for development. Right now there are project proposals across the state that will see thousands of acres being filled with solar panels and pristine green pastures used to accommodate lithium-ion batteries the size of football fields. Yes, we need action, and we also need to get the balance right.

As the world transitions to a lower carbon economy, demand for critical minerals, especially rare-earth elements, is growing as they are essential inputs to electric vehicles and wind turbines. Victoria is rich in mineral sands resources and contains sources of rare-earth elements used in smartphones, televisions and computers as well as medical devices such as X-ray machines, medical lasers and fibre optics. These mineral sands deposits also contain small amounts of naturally occurring radioactive material, which means mining and processing mineral sands deposits are captured by the act.

Currently the act creates uncertainty for mineral sands investors and stymies potential value-adding and processing in Victoria, putting at risk the state’s ability to be a global supplier of critical minerals and rare-earth elements. If you have an electric vehicle, use energy generated from wind turbines or use a smartphone, a television or a computer, then you should be supporting this bill. If you vote against it, the benefits of this industry will move elsewhere, to other states or other countries. I commend this bill to the house.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:03): I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate today. I find some of the debate from the government side rather alarming – alarming in both its ignorance about this technology and its ignorance of the opportunities that are already being lost in Victoria. Earlier this year there were news reports that the government was complaining that Victoria is not getting anything out of this $300 billion AUKUS sub deal. Well, why would anyone do anything in Victoria with nuclear submarines when we have a total prohibition on nuclear activities in the state, as Mr Davis pointed out earlier? Secondly, the other opportunity which has been mentioned many times is that Victoria has world-class mineral sands deposits that are used, quite ironically, for wind turbines and electric cars – neodymium. One of the problems with this is that in processing there are small amounts of radioactive materials which are also in situ, in the ground with the neodymium, praseodymium and these other rare-earth elements. We will never see this sort of processing in Victoria. They will ship it to South Australia or China and we will not have this downstream processing. This is a huge opportunity lost for Victoria with these world-class deposits that we have – another opportunity that the government apparently seems ignorant of. I am quite shocked by that.

Another opportunity which was mentioned is the space industry. This is a rapidly growing industry worldwide. Apparently the government is ignorant again. Planetary exploration requires nuclear batteries. You may wonder why the Viking probes that were launched in the 1970s are still working. It is because they contain a very small amount of plutonium and use that heat to generate small amounts of electricity for powering the computer systems and sensor arrays. We will never have a serious space industry while we have this prohibition.

On to the subject that everyone seems to be most focused on, which is nuclear energy electricity production. The government still seems to be stuck in this mindset from 1983 unfortunately. Mr Batchelor brought up the risk of nuclear proliferation. Luckily we have something that will prevent that – the laws of physics. The output from nuclear reactors is not suitable material to be used in weapons; it is simply not the case. They also bought up the issue around water consumption. What the government apparently is ignorant of is that the water is not consumed by the reactor – it flows through the reactor and is cycled.

Harriet Shing: Are you going to put it back on your crops?

David LIMBRICK: Yes, you can. It is totally safe. The only difference in the water – you laugh at this, but the people watching this will laugh at you, I am telling you. You do not understand what you are talking about. In nuclear reactors that are active right now around the world the water just cycles out, and the only difference is it is slightly warmer, because it is used to cool.

Small modular reactors – yes, there have been failures in this technology. But these submarines that we are getting, guess what, are powered by small modular reactors – amazing. I urge the government to at least educate themselves on these things. It is quite obvious who attended the briefing that I offered to all of the members here, because the members that did not attend seemingly do not have a clue about these opportunities that Victoria is missing out on. We have massive technological opportunities in this state that we can take advantage of right now. Ignoring nuclear technology totally and just looking at space, mining and these other industries, we are just cutting ourselves out of them. Why would we do that? It is madness. We are giving it to South Australia and China.

The other thing that was spoken about was subsidies. I am, like, ‘These industries only survive on subsidies?’ This government subsidises everything to do with energy. Everything to do with electricity is subsidised and controlled by the government. This argument is absolute nonsense.

I would also say on the subject of cost, as it has been brought up, that France and many other jurisdictions throughout the world, such as Ottawa in Canada, have very, very high nuclear power penetration in their grids. They also have very low prices. If your goal is decarbonisation, then you need to look around the world at the reality of decarbonising electricity grids, because the only places throughout the world that have significantly decarbonised their electricity grids have done it through a combination of hydro-electric, other renewables and/or nuclear – places like France, like Ottawa in Canada and other places throughout the world.

On this scare campaign that the government seems to run – ‘Where are you going to put a reactor?’ – the CFMEU and the AWU actually put in submissions to the inquiry. They said that you should put it right where you have the coal power plants now. Utilise the existing infrastructure. This idea that the public is terrified of nuclear – you are carrying forward this Cold War fear from 1983. You might want to have a look at the Resolve poll that was only published two weeks ago. The majority of Australians support nuclear energy. The government is ignorant on this issue. They are out of touch, and they need to get up to date.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (16): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.