 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on second reading ( resumed on motion).
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Other than by way of interjection, I have not been involved in this debate so far, so I want to use this amendment as an opportunity to make a few comments. First, in relation to nuclear power, which a lot of people have talked about in this debate, I come from the position of originally having been a strong proponent of nuclear power. When I first went to university I was studying chemical engineering and one of my hopes was that I would do a double degree, chemical engineering/physics, and work in the nuclear industry. So, that is where I started when I first arrived at university: that was the direction I was heading in. I come from a position that was strongly supportive of the use of the nuclear fuel cycle to one that is strongly opposed.
As for disposal, nowhere in the world is there a solution. Not even the Americans have the arrogance to believe they have a means of permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The Russians certainly did: just drop a bit in the sea, as one method of permanent disposal.
An honourable member interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, and then another bit. The Russians were technologically capable of doing an awful lot in outer space and in the way of weaponry and, certainly, if there were a solution, would have been capable of finding one. However, their solution was dumping things in the sea. The Americans, English and French, all with long histories in the nuclear industry, have not found a means of permanent disposal.
It is an interesting experiment that humanity is involved in. It is an experiment that is creating a waste, and more and more of it, which is dangerous and hoping to God that we actually find a way of getting rid of it later on. That is precisely what we are doing. It is a bit like jumping off a cliff and hoping that you get a parachute on the way down. It is about the same level of logic. We are building up large levels of waste that nobody can deny is dangerous. Some people will say that we can dispose of it and yet, as I said, nobody has yet found a safe way of permanent disposal.
My concern about a site in South Australia is not just about taking somebody else's rubbish. It is about trying to get some accountability in decision making. It seems to me that as long as there is an easy means of disposing of it (in other words, putting it in the middle of the South Australian desert out of sight, out of mind) you do not have to face up to questions about what we are going to do in the long term. Australia fortunately does not have a big nuclear industry. We do not create anything like the waste of other countries but we are still steadily building up quantities of waste that need to be disposed of. The government is about to build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights which will produce high level waste and yet we do not have a genuine means of disposal. It is simply going into the middle of the South Australian desert.
This is not simply the `thin end of the wedge' argument. Anybody who is aware of the FOI which was reported in the Australian last week would know that there have been a whole lot of clear indications that, at a federal level at least, we are talking not just about a low level waste dump but about medium and high level waste as well. It is time that everybody-not just the South Australian community but the New South Wales community and the Victorian community which produce the largest quantities-was forced to face up to the realities that we do not have a real means of disposal; and to realise that there are a whole lot of alternatives.
The average household is capable of reducing its demand for energy by a half at no real expense by simply changing a couple of simple items such as lighting, shower roses and a few things like that. There are simple changes which cost a few hundred dollars which could almost halve energy consumption. We can face up to the long-term future realising that we do have pressure in relation to using fossil fuels but the alternative is not just nuclear. Our first alternative is to use less energy and we can use a lot less energy without changing our lifestyle.
I would not consider my lifestyle to have changed because I put in fluorescent instead of incandescent lights. I would not consider my lifestyle to have changed simply because I put in a high efficiency shower rose, and yet those things make a significant contribution to energy saving, and pay for themselves. The government should be insisting that all new homes incorporate simple features, such as pointing in a certain direction and having shading over windows and northern walls during summer, for example. These things do not add any real cost to the house at all, just simple design features which reduce energy demand. When are we going to face up to the realities? We seem to be avoiding them.
Points were made, for instance, about the use of nuclear medicine. I have never heard any Democrat arguing against the use of nuclear medicine, but I will make a point that if there is sufficient pressure we will actually find other alternatives. Already, for example, magnetic resonance imaging can do a damn sight better job than X-rays. My own daughter who had an injury only two weeks ago had some X-rays taken first, and they showed a bit, but when they used the magnetic resonance imaging the three dimensional clarity of the injury was absolutely amazing.
They do not do it at the moment because it is more expensive, but we know with all technologies that the prices come down rapidly. The point I am making is that, yes, there is technology that uses radioactive materials and it saves many lives, and we should not necessarily stop using it, but I think we will find that every use that is creating these wastes is capable of being replaced by something else. X-rays will undoubtedly be replaced by magnetic resonance imaging, and I am sure there will be other technologies beyond that. Ultrasound is another one that, of course, many people are familiar with.
I think some people feel that we have no choice, that we really are stuck with radioactive waste and have to face up to it, and it is true that we do have all the radioactive waste that has already been created and that we are stuck with that. I am only stating a personal view here, not a party view, but if I knew that we were not going to produce any more and that we were going to look for a one-off solution for what we have-and as long as it was thoroughly researched, although I suspect that will still take a couple of decades because, as I said, nobody else has found a permanent solution-I think I would agree to a dump and if the best place was South Australia I would live with it.
But that is not what we are facing. We are facing a future in which we will go on accepting the fact that there will be waste and indeed allowing increasing amounts of waste, with the building of the new reactor at Lucas Heights. All of that waste will come to South Australia in due course. Anybody who does not believe that is a fool.
As I said, I have not been involved in the debate up until now, but I just wanted to make that brief contribution. It is time we faced up to reality. We do have choices; we just have not been prepared to face up to them and to explore them. I am not saying it is simple. It is always easy to paint things as black and white when you get involved in debate, but it is achievable and I think I gave some examples of clear alternatives to even creating that sort of waste in the first place.
It is only by making sure we have very strong legislation here that we make the whole of Australia eventually face up to these sorts of realities and not take the easy way out. I am afraid that a dump in the middle of South Australia is the easy way out and creates long-term problems.
