Senator the Hon Matt Canavan's Additional Comments

1.1I support comments made by other Coalition senators.

1.2I support the Committee’s recommendations to support the passage of this Bill. However, I am concerned that the Government’s limited approach leaves Australia “half-pregnant” and puts at risk the proper servicing of an Australian nuclear powered submarine fleet.

1.3This Bill makes changes to the prohibitions on nuclear energy that were placed into two Acts in the 1990s. It is important to note that these prohibitions were introduced with little Parliamentary debate and were introduced in a last-minute Senate deal to garner sufficient support for the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.[1]

1.4Australia’s “accidental” prohibitions on nuclear energy have never made much sense in a country that is the world’s largest exporter of uranium. We also house one of the world’s leading nuclear medical facilities just 30 kilometres from our largest city in Sydney.

1.5The nuclear prohibition makes even less sense now that Australia has made the decision to acquire nuclear submarines. How is it logical for us to decide that it is safe for nuclear reactors to travel around our coastlines and dock in our ports, yet apparently unsafe for the same type of nuclear reactors to be housed on land? The nuclear reactors in a Virginia class submarine have a capacity of 260 megawatts, equivalent to the size of many gas power stations in Australia.

1.6The Bill amends the same provisions of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) that a Private Senators’ Bill that I have introduced does. In fact, they are very similar Bills. My bill, however, is a cleaner solution in that it simply removes all of the nuclear prohibitions and hence removes any doubt around the legality of the Department of Defence’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

1.7The Government’s Bill is a “half-pregnant” approach of only removing the nuclear prohibition for the acquisition of submarines. The Chair’s report does not assure me that there are not residual legal risks that could threaten the validity of the nuclear submarine acquisition.

1.8While there is widespread community support for buying nuclear submarines, there remains a committed minority against the purchase of the submarines. There is a strong possibility that such groups may launch legal action against the acquisition. Maintaining legal prohibitions against nuclear energy, therefore, risks legal actions successfully stopping some part of the Department of Defence’s acquisition of nuclear submarines.

1.9For example, what happens if the nuclear reactor from a submarine is transferred to land for testing or maintenance? At that point it is not connected to the submarine so do the limited exemptions in this Bill provide legal protection for that work to occur? Would this be legally valid under the Government’s approach? Even if the legal risk is minimal, it is not clear why we would let such a risk persist given how important the nuclear submarines are to our national security. The cleaner and less risky approach would be to simply remove the nuclear energy prohibition as my Private Senators’ Bill does.

1.10I have grave doubts that we can successfully support a nuclear submarine fleet without a domestic nuclear energy industry. We should not minimise the challenge we face to successfully develop a nuclear submarine fleet. If we are successful, Australia will become just the 7th country in the world to have nuclear submarines.

1.11Every other country with nuclear submarines also has a large domestic nuclear energy industry (see figure 1). There are clearly large synergies between a nuclear-powered submarine industry and a nuclear energy industry. Many nuclear trained submariners end up getting a job later in the domestic energy industry. Indeed, given how tough a career in submarining is we must provide other job opportunities to attract anyone to start a career in nuclear submarines in the first place? How will we attract enough young people to train in nuclear energy if the only job prospect they have for their entire working career is to work on a submarine that takes them away from home and their families for many months of the year. I worry that we are glossing over these important details because it is too politically inconvenient to deal with them.

Figure 1: All countries with nuclear submarines have nuclear energy reactors

1.12This is shown by the Chair’s report only selectively referencing submissions that support the Bill. For example, the report references the submissions from the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA),[2] the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA)[3] and Save Our Surroundings (SOS)[4] as being among those which supported the amendments proposed in this Bill. But each went further to suggest the Bill’s provisions should be expanded to enable the establishment of an Australian civil nuclear industry.

1.13In its opening statement to a recent public hearing into the inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, the MCA pointed out:

The aims of that bill [the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023] are very similar to what we are debating today, facilitating construction and operation of nuclear power reactors.Effectively the Navy will acquire Small Nuclear Reactors, expanding Australian’s nuclear sector beyond the exceptional nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights.

That Australia is willing to invest upwards of $370 billion on nuclear technology while intentionally excluding the capacity to reduce emissions and complement renewables is simply extraordinary.[5]

1.14In its submission to this inquiry, the MCA goes on to state:

The aims of the Defence Bill highlight the absurd inconsistency of using nuclear technology for naval propulsion while intentionally excluding its potential for low- emissions domestic energy generation.In fact, the manner in which this fact is overtly expressed within the bill’s Explanatory Memorandum suggest that the position is political rather than technical or environmental.[6]

1.15In addition to the quote used from the ANA submission in the report, it needs to be acknowledged that the ANA goes on to highlight the inconsistencies in the Government approach outlined in this Bill:

The issues of siting, cost and waste are very similar for nuclear reactors used for propulsion in submarines and for nuclear reactors used for electricity and heat on land. It is disingenuous for the Government in the Memorandum to claim that nuclear power plants are safe in submarines but not on land.[7]

1.16The submission from SOS also went on to conclude:

Exempting the building and maintenance of our proposed nuclear submarine fleet from the continued outdated ban on nuclear power generation in Australia is a short-sighted decision. SOS supports the repeal of Australia's ban on nuclear power and believes therefore that the proposed Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 is unnecessary.[8]

1.17The Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation (CENRIT), Macquarie University, highlights in its submission:

It is illogical therefore that it is permissible that [Nuclear Propelled Naval Vessels] NPNVs with reactors akin to [Small Nuclear Reactors] SMRs to be located alongside docks in ports that are regulated by a civilian regulator, but not permit SMR reactors to generate energy as part of Australia’s essential shift from hydrocarbons to a net-zero future … It is logical that as the defence nuclear program is rolled out in the coming decade, including necessary policy, legal, non-proliferation, workforce, security, and safety arrangements, a concomitant civilian program for similar necessary reforms should also be developed.[9]

1.18A number of other submitters also rightly pointed out the inconsistency in this approach highlighted in this Bill, while not all coming from the same place, ending with the same conclusion:

I have been opposed to the Government's ban on nuclear technology in our country, so rich in the natural resources available as the potential for high energy -flux density fuel, to supply cheap, nonpolluting power … It seems it is okay for multinational mining cartels to "buy cheap, sell dear" our resources and yet deny us the intellectual knowledge and opportunities, to value-add this fuel to benefit our citizens ie isotopes for health treatments, industries and manufactures, to stimulate new technologies, develop our continent.[10]

It intends to allow its use, but only in the case of the energy needed to power submarines while maintaining the ban on the production of energy using nuclear reactors for other uses in Australia … The argument being used, to validate this bill, is that Australia’s National Security is at risk and that our Naval resources must be upgraded to respond to this risk. It assumes that at the time that the current ban was enforced this new threat didn’t exist and that this amendment only became necessary only recently … It is completely hypocritical to make this amendment to the act, that restricts the use of nuclear energy for production of electricity, on the basis that we need it for military defense when we also need it to defend against the risk of climate change.[11]

Regrettably the Bill is limiting by not allowing for new nuclear developments beyond submarines (and ANSTO). And, the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum confirms prohibition on the construction or operation of nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants and reprocessing facilities. World-wide the nuclear sector is continuingly advancing. In contrast, for Australia not to have a wider domestic nuclear sector is restricting, including for nuclear naval capability. In the national interest policy thinking needs to be broader not narrower … The rapid development of nuclear capabilities by other countries including for electricity generation is a matter of record. Australia by comparison is an oddity. On one hand, it is at the forefront of nuclear science and engineering technology in several ways. Its sole nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights is world class and the source of several world advances. This reactor is far more complex than reactors needed for electricity generation and was designed by Australian engineers. Additionally, Australia participates at a high level in international nuclear forums and individual professionals contribute to electricity generation developments in several countries … But in stark contrast to this high-level functioning and to advancing world developments, Australia paradoxically has legislated prohibitions on nuclear powered generation of electricity.[12]

It is completely disingenuous not to fully remove all prohibitions on the use of nuclear energy for both defence and civil installations … From a practical perspective, it should be understood that safety and security issues for submarine reactors using highly enriched fuel are at least an order of magnitude more stringent than in power generation commercial reactors using low enriched fuel. Australia has the intellectual and practical capability to manage both areas of nuclear engineering expertise to meet all international standards, as demonstrated by current operations at ANSTO and generally in the nuclear technology sector.[13]

Finally, I will remark on the fundamental hypocrisy within the Bill that this inquiry is examining. That hypocrisy being that the Bill allows a military use for nuclear fission technologies, with civilian uses of the technology being banned. A political position that has the fascinating capacity of simultaneously annoying both proponents of nuclear fission technologies and those against the use of these technologies. With the proponents of nuclear fission technologies annoyed that the Bill doesn't allow a civilian use for the technologies, and those against nuclear fission technologies annoyed that the ban is not fully uniform in its implementation.[14]

1.19The points in these submissions are logical, consistent and coherent. The Chair’s report provides no sensible justification for allowing the absurd inconsistency to arise where we legalise nuclear reactors on submarines but not at power stations. While I support the passage of the Bill, I will consider during the Parliamentary debate whether amendments should be moved to simply remove the nuclear ban altogether.

Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan

LNP Senator for Queensland

Footnotes

[1]Senate Official Hansard No. 193, 10 December 1998, p. 1645–1646.

[2]Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Submission 12.

[3]Australian Nuclear Association (ANA), Submission 13.

[4]Save Our Surroundings (SOS), Submission 14.

[5]Ms Tania Constable, Chief Executive Officer, Minerals Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 May 2023, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, inquiry into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022, p. 16.

[6]MCA, Submission 12, p. 1.

[7]ANA, Submission 13, p. 1.

[8]SOS, Submission 14, p. 5.

[9]Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation, Submission 52, p. 5.

[10]Ms Trudy Campbell, Submission 114, p. 1.

[11]Mr Michael Durack, Submission 80, pp. 1–2.

[12]Mr Richard White, Submission 75, pp. 2–3.

[13]Mr Barrie Hill, Submission 72, p. 1.

[14]Name withheld, Submission 65, p. 2.