The repeal leaves other elements of the EPBC Act unaffected, meaning the Minister would still assess any application to establish a nuclear facility. Moreover, state and territory powers to protect citizens and the environment from potential adverse radiation impacts remain intact, as does the authority of the Minister for Foreign Affairs under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987.
The bill should be supported because it enables the consideration of nuclear energy as a potential solution to reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change. Nuclear energy is a low-carbon energy source that can significantly contribute to reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, aligning with environmental goals of sustainability and emissions reduction [Judgment]. Additionally, lifting the prohibition allows for technological advancements and innovations in nuclear energy, which can lead to safer and more efficient energy production [Judgment].
The bill should be opposed because the introduction of nuclear facilities poses significant environmental risks, including potential radiation exposure and long-term waste management issues, which could harm local communities and ecosystems. These risks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations who may not have the means to mitigate such impacts [Judgment]. Additionally, the expansion of nuclear energy may detract from investments in renewable energy sources, which are safer and more sustainable options for achieving energy security and environmental protection.
2022-09-28
Before Senate
CANAVAN, Sen Matthew; ANTIC, Sen Alex; CADELL, Sen Ross; COLBECK, Sen Richard; FAWCETT, Sen David; PRICE, Sen Jacinta Nampijinpa; O'SULLIVAN, Sen Matt; RENNICK, Sen Gerard; VAN, Sen David
Unspecified
Climate Change / Environment, Energy Policy