Nuclear Power Industry: Nationals Policy

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [3.41 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the New South Wales Nationals policy that supports a nuclear power industry and a commercial international nuclear waste facility in Australia;

(2) calls on the Liberal Party to either overrule or endorse its junior partner;

(3) calls on the New South Wales Opposition to come clean with its preferred site for the proposed nuclear waste facility; and

(4) congratulates the Iemma Government for continuing to deliver viable renewable energy sources and working to secure our State's energy supply.

This is an important motion because although Coalition members have often raised the nuclear power issue, last weekend at their State conference The Nationals rank and file passed a motion, proposed by the Dubbo branch, to support the development of nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps in this State. The New South Wales Nationals seem to be channelling John Howard. The Australian people overwhelmingly rejected a nuclear future at the last election, yet The Nationals have raised the idea once again. We need to hear from the Coalition today whether its elected members reject or support The Nationals' motion carried at the conference last weekend.

The conference, held at Kirribilli—that well-known regional centre—demonstrated yet again that the New South Wales Nationals are out of touch with their rural constituents. The conference was held at the Kirribilli Club, which, according to the chairman of The Nationals, has ample parking and nearby accommodation. She asked members to make sure they sent an RSVP for the black-tie dinner on Friday night. Of course, they would not want to miss that. The Minister for Transport would be interested to know that The Nationals chairman endorsed the quality of the Sydney rail network by urging delegates to take a train to North Sydney, as I am sure she did. The conference motion raised a number of climate change issues and once again clearly showed that climate change sceptics are firmly in control of The Nationals.

When advocating earlier that my motion be accorded priority today I quoted the member for Barwon's statement in his newsletter that the conference had passed motions supporting more research into climate change and its effects. The member did not want to go into too much detail, but a series of motions clearly showed the scepticism of The Nationals, who still cannot accept the major challenge our State faces with climate change. [Quorum called for.]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! It is disorderly for a member to leave the Chamber once he has drawn attention to the state of the House. The member for Lismore will remain in the Chamber.

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

Mr STEVE WHAN: I am sure that you, Madam Acting Speaker, would be interested to know about some of the other motions considered at the conference. One motion from the Dubbo branch called for Badgerys Creek to be the site of the second international airport. You might be interested to tell your constituents about that. Other motions exposed once again the climate change sceptics within the Opposition. What a contrast to the Iemma Government's commitment to renewable energy and promoting renewable energy policies in New South Wales.

The Nationals, in their desperation to become relevant again as a political force, passed a motion supporting the only means they have of picking up seats in New South Wales—reintroduction of a gerrymander. They passed a motion that suggested they should achieve a 20 per cent reduction in electoral quotas for electorates currently covering 10,000 square kilometres or more. That would be a great electoral advantage for me; it would make Monaro a safe Labor seat, but I will not endorse a party that seeks to promote its political survival by reintroducing a gerrymander. Shades of Joh Belke-Petersen—he is not dead, he is alive and well in the New South Wales Nationals. What a disgraceful bunch they are.

There were some other interesting motions. The conference called on the party to investigate contesting a greater number of State and Federal electorates. We know where that came from: a motion from the Southern Highlands branch calling for three-cornered contests. There were interesting comments on the likely candidate for the Federal seat, Pru Goward, versus the other likely Nationals candidate, the member for Burrinjuck. That explains why the member for Goulburn was so upset and launched into an attack on a member on this side of the House to explain why she was spending so much time in the north of her electorate and outside it.

The other motion passed by The Nationals conference that I know my colleagues will be interested to hear about supported changing the age of eligibility for membership of the Young Nationals. You can now be a Young National if you are between 16 and 35 years of age. I gather they brought it down to 35 because the Leader of The Nationals was sick of having the older members of the party say, "We will take you seriously, sonny, when you are out of Young Nats." They are all over the place. Interestingly enough, the conference papers had not a single motion from The Nationals of the Monaro region. They have completely faded from view. The conference made no commitment to combat climate change, but instead rehashed old policies of John Howard to introduce the nuclear industry into Australia, something the people of Australia and New South Wales have said they do not want.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [3.49 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to clarify The Nationals' position on nuclear power. Obviously we oppose the motion because it is based on a false premise. The Nationals parliamentary party is the group that determines policy on nuclear energy and although we listen to our grassroots members, unlike the Government, whose members voted approximately 700 to 100 to oppose electricity privatisation, we are not bound by any conference motion. The motion was fairly contested, unlike Labor's privatisation motion, which was seven to one against privatisation yet the Government is still going ahead with it. The Nationals' parliamentary party sets the policy; we are clearly opposed to nuclear power in New South Wales. In order for a nuclear plant to be built in New South Wales legislation is necessary. The last time this matter was debated in the House, on 22 November 2006—and the policy has not changed—the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, speaking for both the Liberal Party and The Nationals, said:

Months ago I said there would be no nuclear energy in New South Wales There will simply be no nuclear energy in New South Wales under the Liberal and National parties That is why months ago I ruled out nuclear energy, the Leader of the Nationals ruled it out, the member for Ballina ruled it out—

and I did that also in my local media—

and Coalition members ruled it out. We said there will be no nuclear power in New South Wales. We will go for clean coal technology; we will go for renewable technology; we will move forward to the next generation. We want to move forward.

The former Leader of the Opposition said that prior to the last election when this very issue was debated in this House. Following The Nationals conference last weekend the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, on ABC news stated:

New South Wales Nationals leader Andrew Stoner says he will not adopt a policy supporting nuclear energy that was passed at the party's annual state conference in Sydney today

Mr Stoner says policies formed at state conferences are not binding on the parliamentary wing of the party.

That is the way it is under our constitution. We listen to what our grassroots people have to say and we have rigorous debate. Indeed, the motion was only about research into nuclear power; it was not about endorsing a nuclear power plant. Some of our grassroots members believe that we should research this issue and the conference passed the motion by a narrow majority, but that in no way binds the parliamentary party. Our parliamentary policy has been and will continue to be to oppose nuclear power in New South Wales. Because the motion was passed last Saturday, North Coast Nationals members—the member for Clarence, member for Lismore, member for Tweed, and I—issued an immediate press release to clarify the fact that it was not parliamentary party policy to have nuclear power in New South Wales and that we opposed the motion. In that release we stated:

The strong declaration came after the NSW Nationals conference passed motions supporting research into nuclear power and investigating turning water inland.

Although the motions were only about research and investigations, the MPs reaffirmed their total opposition to nuclear power and turning water inland.

Shadow Minister for the North Coast Don Page said that while the views of conferences were valued and considered, it was the parliamentary party which set the policies the Nationals take to the election.

He said the parliamentary party's position against nuclear power and river diversions had not changed and the four North Coast Nationals MPs would fight any changes to those policies "tooth and nail".

Clarence Nationals MP Steve Cansdell said there was no way he would ever support nuclear power or allow water to be diverted from the Clarence River.

Tweed Nationals MP Geoff Provest bluntly restated his long held position that the Tweed River would be diverted "over his dead body".

The release goes on. This is a furphy by the member from Monaro to try to divert attention from the internal war going on in the Labor Party over electricity privatisation. His constituents do not want him to vote in support of privatisation yet he is doing so. He was even a member of the Unsworth committee that recommended privatisation. I should point out to the Labor Party that a Labor councillor on Baulkham Hills Shire Council, David Bentham, recently said that Wisemans Ferry would be an "ideal" place for a nuclear power plant. In an interview with the gazette, Councillor Bentham, a former engineer, said that Wisemans Ferry had most of the characteristics needed for a nuclear power plant.

It is near Sydney, close to the power grid, close to cooling water because of the river, and has stable geography. A Labor Party member has said that nuclear power is a great idea, right on the doorstep of Sydney, yet because a Nationals branch member thinks we should research nuclear power, the Labor Party is trying to score cheap political points despite a Labor councillor saying Wisemans Ferry would be a great place to have a nuclear power plant. The Opposition will vigorously oppose the motion because it is based on the false premise that we support nuclear power. We do not support nuclear power; we never have supported it; and we will not support it.

Mr GERARD MARTIN (Bathurst) [3.56 p.m.]: I join the member for Monaro in speaking on this important subject and exposing the Opposition's hypocrisy. I share the Government's concern about the worrying obsession of the New South Wales Nationals for nuclear power, for nuclear reactors and nuclear waste dumps in our backyards, but giving no indication, like their Liberal colleagues before them, of where they would locate a nuclear power plant or nuclear waste dump. The motion states that it would be located somewhere in Australia, but even if it were not in New South Wales, nuclear waste could be transported through this State. There are a host of options as a wide as Sydney Heads. They tell us now that the rank and file perhaps have different views and they tried to shift the debate to electricity privatisation. They have plasticine backbones. They have been flipping and flopping while we have been solid all the way. Perhaps they should tell us what they are going to do on electricity privatisation.

We need to plan for the future, and climate change means that we need to find alternatives to burning coal for power. The member for Tweed has stated on the record that there are real renewable alternatives we can pursue without having to go down a nuclear path. His colleagues should listen to him. The community does not want a future with nuclear power, which is why the Iemma Government is working on developing renewable energy alternatives. We need to prepare for a future in which renewable energy will play an ever-growing role, while at the same time we are open and honest in tackling the problems that our current technologies pose. The Government has taken a multi-pronged approach—backing increased renewable energy targets while at the same time improving our current energy systems to minimise adverse effects on our environment.

More than 90 per cent of this State's energy needs are currently met by coal, and probably 20 per cent of that comes from my electorate. The Government is doing everything it can to improve our clean coal technology. While we continue the search for practical renewable energy solutions, clean coal technology offers us a key chance to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future. In the last year alone we have invested more than $420,000 on projects that specifically assist in clean coal research. In an Australian first, New South Wales is trialling a $5 million pilot carbon capture plant at Lake Munmorah on the Central Coast. The facility is an important step in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions. The Government is working hard on solutions to these major challenges while those opposite remain bereft of ideas. The member for Goulburn on a debate in this place about clean coal said:

Whilst clean coal can produce less dirty coal, it cannot produce clean coal.

What a magnificent contribution! It is typical of the brainpower on the Opposition benches.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [4.00 p.m.]: I speak against the motion. It is most disturbing that members opposite spend all their time and effort scouring through documents from various meetings when they should be focusing on the real issue. The member for Bathurst said that the Government has spent $420,000 on clean coal technology, an industry that is worth literally billions. It is our future, but was given a mere pittance. I question whether the member for Bathurst will vote against the motion tomorrow.

Mr Steve Whan: What motion?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The energy service corporations ownership motion. In terms of nuclear energy, quite rightly the member for Bathurst and the member for Monaro said "over my dead body". At a recent conference I said that people in the street do not want nuclear energy. There is still no viable solution to storing highly radioactive nuclear waste. No-one, other than the Labor councillors at Baulkham Hills, would like a radioactive reactor in their electorate. I am no different, and I know the Tweed electorate and the rest of New South Wales do not want radioactive waste sites in their backyards. I have gone on record to say that there are far more renewable energy sources out there.

It is of major concern that members of the House, particularly the member for Monaro and the member for Bathurst, waste a super amount of time on what I consider to be mud raking, digging up issues. Does the Government send anyone out to listen to what the people are saying about this? We are out there, listening to the people. Perhaps the member for Monaro should start doing the same, because it is the people who have put us here. The member for Murray-Darling is a classic example of that, as is the member for Tweed. We listened to the people, we put forward policies, and we were elected. Paragraph (4) of the motion congratulates the Iemma Government on continuing to deliver reliable renewable energy sources—such as the desalination plant at Kurnell, which will suck enormous amounts of electricity powered by wind.

The only thing the Labor Party powers by wind is in this House—but it is not generating electricity. If Labor Party members recycled half the effort they waste on cheap political spin we could have some real future for New South Wales. I am very serious about being 100 per cent for the Tweed and listening 100 per cent to the comments of Tweed residents, and I plan to continue doing that from now into the future.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [4.02 p.m.]: We all know that nuclear power is the wrong option for New South Wales. Legislation is in place to prohibit its development, but The Nationals keep harking back to the past, thinking that something that was talked about half way through last century is still a good idea. They hang on to it. The former Prime Minister's report clearly showed that nuclear power was 50 per cent more expensive, had to be centrally controlled, and therefore was much more inefficient. Government members are concentrating on wind and solar technologies. How many members opposite want a nuclear waste plant in their electorate?

Does the member for Wagga Wagga want one in his electorate? Maybe the member for Murray-Darling wants one in his electorate? These old ideas keep cropping up in The Nationals, who are trying to distinguish themselves from the Liberals but are having a hard time of it. They will be swallowed up by the Liberal Party one day, because they are not relevant. That is the problem. I can explain why that is so. In a visit to my electorate some weeks ago by their Leader and other members, they called themselves the Hunter Liberals, a new team.

Mr Thomas George: Our leader?

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Coalition. He said, "Here we are, the new Liberals." That was just like going to town in a HQ Holden with a Commodore badge. They called themselves the new team, and they included Mike Gallacher, Robyn Parker, Barry O'Farrell—a real new team. But where was George? George was nowhere to be seen.

Mr Thomas George: I am here!

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: I am talking about George Souris—he was nowhere to be seen. He got really upset because he was not included. Of course he was not included, he is on the outer, and that was the problem. The Hunter Liberals did not see fit to call him to join the team. What does that say about him? If he is going to put out nuclear energy policies that hark back to old ideas that no-one wants in New South Wales, no wonder he was not included. We want a clear, decisive statement by the Liberals on whether they endorse The Nationals motion supporting nuclear power research, or oppose it. That is what is wanted from the Coalition. If it does not come up with something sensible it will be totally irrelevant in this House. Those old ideas will not do it any good whatsoever.

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.05 p.m.], in reply: Despite the sorrow expressed by the member for Ballina, it was quite obvious that he appreciated the opportunity I provided him to put his views on this issue on the record. I cannot understand why he will not vote for the motion. He spoke in favour of it and then said he would vote against it. The motion is not based on a false premise, given that it refers to a New South Wales Nationals policy that presumably came from The Nationals conference. I was a little stunned to hear from members opposite that talking about their conference was a waste of time. I hope that their delegates did not think that it was a waste of time on the weekend. I thought it was quite good.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Maybe members opposite went along only for the black tie dinner on Friday night; that probably was fun. And what about the cocktails at the end, before they flew home, that probably was fun. I have a theory about why the conference was held in Kirribilli: it is a lot closer to where most Nationals members of Parliament live. We hardly ever see them out in rural New South Wales.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Hansard is having a great deal of difficulty hearing the member.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The interjections by members opposite strenuously told us that Barry O'Farrell was not their leader. I have no doubt about that after seeing his performance today. Again today, instead of a rational performance, we saw a person who clearly has no perspective. Citing Watergate to describe what happens in this House is absolutely bizarre. I am pleased that the member for Coffs Harbour has entered the Chamber to join in this debate. I look forward to him sending out a letter about me one day, because then I might be able to afford to pay off some of my mortgage, when I think about the money he has given to the federation. I highlight again that it is only this Labor Government that is moving on renewable energy.

A lot of positive things are happening in this State: 2,000 megawatts of renewable generation projects pending, including several in the area I represent; renewable development; green power; commissioning a new wind farm near Lake George; and a $40 million renewable energy development fund. Those are serious proposals to combat global warming. But in The Nationals we see just more climate change sceptics. The newly elected Young Nationals executive could be up to 35 years old—that is young for them—but their new vice president offered advice to the people of the Pacific islands by asking them why they chose to live there in the first place. That is the attitude of The Nationals on global warming. It is not serious and it needs to get on board.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.