Schools’ State Constitutional Convention: 10 September 2007€¦ · Web viewState Constitutional Convention. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 10 September 2007 Victorian School’s

Victorian Schools’State Constitutional

Convention

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

10 September 2007

10 September 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention2

Victorian School’s Constitutional Convention ProgramVictorian School’s Constitutional Convention ProgramNinety-seven senior student delegates from the three education sectors, representing 27 secondary colleges, assembled at Parliament House on Monday, 10 September to participate in the 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention. Rural/regional delegates represented 21% of total participation.

Now in its 14th year, the convention continues to provide a practical opportunity for senior secondary students to explore topical and community issues within the context of the Australian Constitution.

The topic for the 2007 Convention was ‘Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option’.

The Program opened with an keynote presentation by Sir Gustav Nossal, followed by debate involving Martin Sevior and Amit Golder (speaking for the nuclear option), and Tilman A. Ruff and Tom O’Connor (speaking against the nuclear option). Following student discussion groups, Rod Espie (Parliament of Victoria) conducted a vote which concluded in a 67:27 result against the motion. Student participation was facilitated through debate, discussion, feedback, soap-box session and vote.

Jaspreet Singh from Taylors Lakes Secondary College and Mark Holmes from Lalor Secondary College, briefed delegates about their experiences at the 2007 National Convention held in Canberra in March this year.

Stephanie Coulston and Dylan Elliot, student reporters from Thornbury High School (Class TV), conducted interviews and filmed activities during the day under the direction of their teachers, Colin Thompson (Producer) and Bill Smith (AV technician).

Twenty-five delegates from the State Convention will be selected to represent Victoria at the National Convention to be held in Canberra in March 2008.

The State Convention was administered by a Planning Committee comprising:

Sue Nilsen Association of Independent Schools of VictoriaRosemary Darwinkle Australian Electoral CommissionGreg Whiley Catholic Education Office, MelbourneRod Espie Parliament of VictoriaRachel Laurie Department of Education and Early Childhood DevelopmentChristine Pinto Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Gary Shaw Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Sonya Velo Department of Education and Early Childhood Development


VICTORIAN SCHOOLS’ STATECONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option

Legislative Assembly ChamberParliament House, Melbourne

10 September 2007


PRESENTERSChair: Ms Judy Maddigan, MP, Member of EssendonWelcome: Mr Steve Herbert, MLA, Parliamentary Secretary for EducationSpeakers:

Sir Gustav Nossal, Professor Emeritus (Pathology), University of MelbourneDr Martin Sevior, Associate Professor (Experimental Particle Physics), University of MelbourneDr Tilman A. Ruff, Associate Professor, Nossal Institute, University of MelbourneMr Amit Golder, Arts/Law student, Monash University Debating SocietyMr Tom O’Connor, Victorian Director, Oaktree Foundation; 2007 Young Victorian of the YearMs Jaspreet Singh, Year 12 student, Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeMr Mark Holmes, Year 12 student, Lalor Secondary College.

Closing remarks: Mr Martin Dixon, MLA, Opposition Spokesperson for Education.

STUDENT DELEGATES:Blossom Ah Ket, Northcote High SchoolEric Allilomou, Melbourne High SchoolMouhamed Assafiri, Lalor Secondary CollegeIara Balo, Elwood CollegeRichard Bauer, St Patrick's CollegeSonia Borghetti, Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeShannon Bourke, Terang CollegeTyler Brady, University High SchoolSarah Bubb, Brauer CollegeMaximilian Buchanan, Elwood CollegeShelley Burns-Williamson, Northcote High SchoolMarissa Buttera, Northcote High SchoolPetek Cagrier, Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeSimone Caligiuri, Lalor Secondary CollegeChristine Cannon, Baimbridge CollegePatrick Clearwater, Melbourne High SchoolRichard Cole, University High SchoolStephanie Coulston, Thornbury High SchoolShannon Davies, Thomastown Secondary CollegeTerry Dehghani, Lalor Secondary CollegeBrittney Duckett, Tallangatta Secondary CollegeJohnny El Halabi, Antonine CollegeDylan Elliot, Thornbury High SchoolSam Farfoud, Antonine CollegeJack Ferguson, St Patrick's CollegeElizabeth Forrest, University High School10 September 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention

4

Mascha Ghiradini, Elwood CollegeSahika Goker, University High SchoolDaniel Gonsalves, Mazenod CollegeJoseph Gould, Flora Hill Secondary Col-legeBen Graham, Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeCallan Green, University High SchoolRuby Han, Northcote High SchoolCal Hannan, University High SchoolSam Harrison, St Patrick's CollegeSamuel Hearne, University High SchoolEmma Hogg, The Hamilton & Alexandra CollegeMark Holmes, Lalor Secondary CollegeJack Howes, University High SchoolMary Ioannidis, Northcote High SchoolMarti Kaiser, University High SchoolSimone Karmis, University High SchoolLouis Karp, Elwood CollegeVarun Khatter, Northcote High SchoolRishi Kher, Melbourne High SchoolOlivia Kidman, Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeOlivia Koh, University High SchoolZara La Roche, Bairnsdale Secondary CollegeDenholm Lappas, Elwood CollegeAnaBia Leite, Elwood CollegeMarie Lenartowicz, University High SchoolEmma Lewis, Eaglehawk Secondary CollegeCaleb Lim, Elwood CollegeFreya List, University High SchoolFelix Lofgren, Elwood CollegeMara Mathieson, Northcote High SchoolDanielle McDonald, Orbost Secondary CollegeLyle McLeman, Cann River P-12 Col-legeOscar McLoughlin-Ning, University High SchoolCaitlin McNamara, Strathcona Baptist Girls' Grammar Benjamin Mobilio, University High SchoolBrwa Mohammed,

Vincent Moore, Mazenod CollegePaula Muir, Baimbridge CollegeElena Mujkic, Strathcona Baptist Girls' GrammarCharbel Nehme, Antonine CollegeSiobhan Neyland, University High SchoolKatja Novakovic, Northcote High SchoolMiriam Nowak, University High SchoolBJ Oakford, Notre Dame CollegeAdriana Ochoa, Elwood CollegeMeghan O'Connor, Bairnsdale Secondary CollegePeter O'Keefe, Notre Dame CollegePeta-Pearl Politis, Methodist Ladies' CollegeLiam Power, Elwood CollegeVaughan Quinn, University High SchoolMichael Raju, Lalor North Secondary CollegeKristina Ricketts, University High SchoolDaniela Rocha, Elwood CollegeAmy Roulston, Orbost Secondary Col-legeTom Scott, Elwood CollegeNathan Segal, Koonung Secondary Col-legeMichael Serratore, Mazenod CollegeSarah Shafik, Lalor Secondary CollegeJaspreet Singh, Taylors Lakes Secondary CollegeJosie Smart, Northcote High SchoolMaria Stranieri, Thomastown Secondary CollegeEthan Tunstall, Bairnsdale Secondary CollegeJake Twohig, University High SchoolGaetano Vangeli, Lalor North Secondary CollegeCarla Ward, Baimbridge CollegeVaibhav Wardhen, Melbourne High SchoolBen Warner, Notre Dame CollegeCherie Wasa, Lalor Secondary CollegeAshlee Weidenbach, Notre Dame Col-lege


Thomastown Secondary College Nicholas Whan, Flora Hill Secondary CollegeKatrina Williams, University High School


Welcome and introduction

The CHAIR (Mrs Maddigan) — Good morning and welcome to the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament. My name is Judy Maddigan and I am the member for Essendon. It is great to have you all here today. This is a bit awe-inspiring, I think, when you come in here for the first time. Parliament House was actually built 151 years ago. The stonemasons who built it — you can see it more on the outside — were one of the first unions to get the eight-hour day because they went on strike while they were building this chamber, which I think was very sensible of them because the government of the day had already said when it wanted Parliament to open, which was in November, so they did very well. It is a great building which you will be able to have a look at later on this morning.

We have a number of guest speakers this morning, but I will introduce them to you as they get to speak rather than all at the beginning. I welcome you all very much. If there is anything else you need to know or anything like that, please feel free to go out and ask the attendants in the vestibule. Today is being recorded by our Hansard reporters, who are the very elegant people sitting over here on my left. We also have standards of what is allowed to be said in Parliament, but I am sure we will not have to refer to any of them this morning. Our first speaker this morning to open our activities and the debate on whether future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option is the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Mr Steven Herbert, who of course is a member of the government, a member of the Labor Party.

Mr HERBERT (Parliamentary Secretary for Education) — To Judy Maddigan, the member for Essendon and former Speaker — Judy was the Speaker in the 55th Parliament and it is good to see her back in that chair; I can tell you she is a harsh taskmaster so make sure you abide by the rules of Parliament — my parliamentary colleague Martin Dixon, who will be here later today, Sir Gustav Nossal, our distinguished guest speakers and students, it is a pleasure to be here today to open this Schools State Constitutional Convention. I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we stand, the Wurundjeri people. I acknowledge their culture and the important role indigenous people have played in this region.

Today over 20 schools are represented here at the Schools State Constitutional Convention, which is a major event in Victoria’s civics and citizenship education calendar for schools across the state. It is very important, as the Chair said, that we are here in this very special place, because the Parliament of Victoria — where you sit — is in fact one of the historical icons of this nation. This Parliament House is the only building in Australia that has been the host to a colonial Parliament, to a state Parliament and to a federal Parliament. Many of you may not know that the federal Parliament was held in this building for more than 20 years — from 1901 to 1927 — before the first federal Parliament House was built in Canberra. Back then federal members of Parliament would have sat in the seats you are occupying right now and made decisions that created Australia as the nation we know today. Hansard reporters will be recording each and every word that is spoken here, as happens in the normal Parliament, and that will be part of the formal records of the Parliament of Victoria for evermore.

The theme of this constitutional convention is ‘Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option’, which is a current and controversial topic. The nuclear energy debate is complex, but it is one which governments around the world are starting to engage in as part of the response to the major concern that governments and people have about global warming and the growth worldwide in the demand for energy. The Victorian government has taken a proactive stance on climate change. In fact up until two months ago I was the Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment. I shifted across to become the education parliamentary secretary when the new Premier took office not that long ago. We have a major emphasis on trying to reduce emissions, trying to reduce consumption and trying to produce cleaner energy. We do this through a range of mechanisms, but primarily through the Victorian renewable energy target scheme. That is a scheme that has triggered new investment in renewable energy projects, including wind power, geothermal and major solar power stations.

It is interesting to note that today the government released figures which show that something like 228 000 Victorian households have switched from coal generation to clean power generation. That is over 40 per cent of the national total and puts Victoria in the leading light in terms of ordinary people switching and trying to do their bit for climate change and to take up the use of renewable energy. However, the Victorian government is not a supporter of nuclear power — I am sure many of you will know this — and under the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983, state Parliament legislation, nuclear power stations and waste dumps are banned in Victoria. This is in stark contrast to the commonwealth government, who have put nuclear energy back on the


national agenda and are currently investigating the proposition of starting up a nuclear power industry in Australia. Ultimately the level of public support for and against nuclear energy will have major implications for the direction of government policy. It is a controversial topic, and I doubt that any government would take it on or reject it unless they were sure that the public would come along with that decision. I understand that you all here have copies of papers outlining many arguments for and against the topic. The papers and the presentations of today’s speakers will put forward the pros and cons and help you weigh the risks and potential benefits of nuclear energy.

I encourage you all to participate fully and ask the important and hard questions, and to challenge your own views and the views of others. Your participation in this debate affirms our basic ideals of democracy, equality, freedom of speech and social justice. Today’s convention promises to be a wide-ranging, invigorating and highly productive forum. You can ensure its success by both contributing to the debate and listening to the views of others. I know that I, for one, will be looking forward to reading the transcript tomorrow or the next day and actually having a look at the level of the debate and the outcomes that you have got from this, because — like everybody else — members of Parliament also have to make up their minds on where they stand on this important issue.

In closing, I would like to thank the state planning committee, the teachers from the host schools for their work in organising this and regional events across Victoria. I wish you all the best in the challenges that you have today. I hope it is a productive debate, and I hope it is an enjoyable day for all of you.

Delegates applauding.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Steve. To set us up we are very lucky today to have with us today Sir Gustav Nossal, an emeritus professor of the University of Melbourne. I am sure you all know a great deal about Sir Gus, but just to help those of you who do not: Sir Gustav Nossal is a dedicated internationalist and has championed the cause of health in developing nations since 1976, when he took a year’s sabbatical leave to work as an adviser to the World Health Organisation in Geneva. On returning to Australia he initiated a project to develop a vaccine against malaria, which had been a major killer of children in tropical nations. He is a leading advocate for and organiser of global immunisation campaigns to eradicate childhood diseases. When Professor Sir Gus stepped down in 1996, after 31 years at the helm of Australia’s internationally renowned Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and as Professor of Medical Biology at the University of Melbourne, he devoted considerable energy and intellect to the immense task of ridding the planet of two childhood scourges — measles and poliomyelitis. The University of Melbourne has recognised eminent immunologist Professor Sir Gus’s lifetime contributions to global health by creating a new global health institute in his honour — the Nossal Institute for Global Health. Welcome this morning, Sir Gus.

PART A: INTRODUCING THE ISSUE

Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option

Prof. NOSSAL — Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to be here and to give this overview talk. I, too, would like to acknowledge the Wurundjeri people, to pay my respects to their elders and to remind everyone that we are having this important meeting on their traditional lands.

My job here is to lay out the key issues on this vital and, as the parliamentary secretary said, controversial topic but without taking any sides. That job is for later speakers to do and then later on for you too to do. Looming large over our consideration is climate change. The international panel on climate change has told us that the global warming that we have been experiencing in the world over the last 10 to 15 years is 90 per cent likely to be due to human activity. In something as important as this I think humanity would be very foolish to wait for that to turn into 99.9 per cent. Of course amongst the greenhouse gases that are behind the global warming, carbon dioxide is a key culprit. It is imperative that we lower carbon dioxide emissions. How can we do this?

There are basically four alternatives that you are going to have to consider, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is energy conservation — smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars; more use of public transport rather than private cars; energy conservation in the home — turn down the thermostat and put on a jumper, do not worry about air conditioning, just put up with a few hot days, energy efficient light bulbs, which you can get now — there are lots and lots of things that you can do in the home; and also energy efficiency pursued in industry, where much energy is wasted. All of these options have to be pursued.


The second set of considerations is to promote the greater use of renewable energy sources, as the parliamentary secretary told you. Solar — we really should think very seriously about putting solar panels, which are excellent for domestic hot water systems, on every Victorian roof. Solar energy for the generation of electricity into the grid is still expensive, but it must be pursued. If history is any guide, as technology improves and as mass production takes over, costs will come down. I certainly would like to congratulate the Victorian government for the large solar plant that is going to be built near Mildura.

Wind is a bit controversial. It is certainly a good form of renewable energy but visual pollution has been mentioned as a big worry, and I am seeing quite a bit of this NIMBY syndrome here — that is, ‘Yes, it is a great thing, but please do not put it anywhere where it spoils my beautiful view of Bass Strait’.

An interesting one for you to think about is biomass, which essentially means growing plants and deriving ethanol or diesel from them — sugar cane, canola, corn, even algae. These will take up C02 as they grow. Of course when you actually then finally burn the ethanol in your car, you will be emitting CO2. You have to think a little bit about that.

Hydro is a great form of renewable energy. Water is scarce, people clearly do not want more dams, but I will tell you about one very interesting thing that I heard about recently — that is, mini-hydro plant electricity generation. Melbourne Water is thinking very seriously of harnessing some of the power. As the water flows from the catchments into your taps, there is a gradient. Melbourne’s water is virtually all gravity fed — it will not be when the super-pipe comes over the mountain but at the moment it is. That could be a form of renewable energy, albeit modest, that is not going to hurt anyone.

Geothermal is a very promising energy source for Australia. Essentially it is pumping water down to hot rocks deep underground in a closed kind of a circuit, heating the water up and driving the turbines from the steam coming off the hot water. Tidal is probably further out.

Perhaps in the very long term we have to think hard about hydrogen as a fuel. The trouble with hydrogen is it takes energy to produce, and storage is a real problem. If you turn the hydrogen into liquid hydrogen, you lose energy in so doing, and if you use hydrogen as a gas, even as a compressed gas, it is still very large in volume, and that is a problem. But if you want to travel to Perth tomorrow, you can go and ride in three hydrogen-powered buses that show it can be done. I think that methane from waste is in a minor kind of a way also worth pursuing. That is your second set of considerations — promoting the greater use of renewable energy.

I want to talk to you quite seriously about more efficient use of fossil fuels — natural gas rather than coal. Natural gas burns much more cleanly, and Australia has tons of it. What I mean by that is that instead of about 30 per cent of the energy being captured and turned into electricity, as in a coal-fired electricity generating station, with a natural gas plant it can be 60 or perhaps even 70 per cent — capturing that embedded energy and not wasting it.

In the same category as natural gas I would put clean coal. That is actually a misnomer — we should be talking about cleaner coal, not clean coal, because both natural gas and cleaner coal still generate the CO2, still generate the loss of carbon from the fossil fuel into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if it is going to be more efficient, we will be able to use less of it, and that is quite important. I would dearly love to see a future in which Australia becomes the world’s leading technologist in cleaner coal technology — converting that coal into a liquid and using ways of burning it that are very efficient. With our immense stores of coal that we have here, that is something that we could use not only for ourselves but that we could also export as a technology to the rest of the world.

That brings us to the fourth alternative — nuclear energy. What is nuclear energy? I am speaking about nuclear energy for generating electricity. Highly enriched uranium is used in so-called fuel rods, and what is done is that a controlled nuclear chain reaction is induced, which generates heat, which then heats up water and generates steam and electricity through turbines — the end part is quite conventional. Nuclear is particularly good for baseload electricity — that electricity which, for example, will drive an aluminium smelter down at Portland.

There are 430 nuclear power stations in the world at the moment, most having been operating for 30 years or even 40 years. They supply a bit under 20 per cent — I think it is 19 per cent — of the world’s electricity, and more nuclear power plants are being built. For the world, as again the parliamentary secretary has said, undoubtedly nuclear has to be a major option. It is reasonably economic. In the main it is proven and very safe. There have been two substantial accidents that you will know about. One was at Chernobyl in the Ukraine 20 years ago, where human error caused a meltdown, and there were 32 deaths. Many of those deaths were among the heroic people


who isolated the melted down area and surrounded it in concrete. Undoubtedly there would have been more deaths through some thyroid cancers that the fall-out would have caused.

The second accident of any significance occurred at Three Mile Island. That was fortunately much less disastrous, but significant amounts of radioactivity were spilt into the surrounding atmosphere. There were no deaths, but Three Mile Island could have been a lot worse. It has been claimed, and it will be put to you by the speakers, I am sure, that there have been far fewer deaths caused by nuclear power than through coal mining. Coal mining is a pretty dangerous occupation. There are, of course, mine collapses, and there are quite frequently methane outbursts or explosions. Even the release of isotopes from coal as it is burnt is a problem of minimal isotopic load.

Apart from these accidents, the second big downer about nuclear energy is nuclear waste disposal. When these fuel rods are spent they are still very highly radioactive. They will be radioactive for many, many years. In the initial 30, 40 and 50 years they will have to be kept on site as they cool down. Some of them are in sort of swimming pool-type arrangements. Many of them are just being stored behind barriers at the site where the power is being generated. Eventually the long-term solution to spent fuel has to be deep repositories or what you might think of as a reverse mine in stable geological environments. Australia has been touted as one place that has an admirable geology, particularly in the centre of Australia, for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. The technical problems have been essentially solved; the problems of perception have certainly not been solved, and the NIMBY syndrome remains lurking over this whole field big time.

The other thing that needs to be said is that the nuclear-spent fuel rods and the highly enriched uranium which goes into the making of the fuel rods provides a fertile place for terrorism to rear its ugly head — the stealing of enriched uranium and the manufacture of a suitcase bomb. It is really quite likely that this is a bigger problem for the world than rogue states having nuclear weapons. It is actually also a problem with respect to nuclear weapons either being manufactured and/or being dismantled. Bear in mind there are still tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, many of which are in countries of the former USSR, where things are not that great and where really securely locating them is not the easiest thing in the world.

I personally have no doubt that nuclear power will have to be a part of the solution for the whole world, but need it be for Victoria where we have these immense amounts of coal and where we have the potential through technology of making the coal cleaner? That is something for you to determine. I will leave it to those more expert than me to tell you whether to vote for or against the issue.


The CHAIR — Before I call our guests to speak either for or against the issue, I might briefly put it into the political context. As you all know, the political journalists suggest the federal election will be called either later this week or early next week. The political parties have really very different views in relation to nuclear energy. The federal Liberal government at the moment has a system going ahead where it is investigating the possibility of sites in Australia for nuclear energy. The Victorian government is totally opposed to them. In actual fact it attempted to put a bill through this Parliament earlier this year which would have meant there would have to be a plebiscite, so everyone would vote in Victoria before any nuclear energy plant could be built on commonwealth land sites. Interestingly enough that was defeated in the upper house where the Liberal Party, The Nationals and the Greens all voted against it, so that bill did not go through that house. As you can see, there are quite significant and differing views in the political spectrum. So it is one of the issues possibly as we go towards the federal election that you will see much more about. However, today we will start off with our first speaker for the motion that future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option.

Our first speaker is Martin Sevior, who is associate professor, experimental particle physics, at the University of Melbourne. Martin obtained his PhD in the field of nuclear astrophysics from the University of Melbourne in 1984. In 1985 he worked at the TRIUMF cyclotron accelerator in Vancouver, Canada. In 1993 he returned to the University of Melbourne and is now working in the field of experimental particle physics. He performs experiments with the world’s highest intensity and energy particle accelerators in Japan and at CERN in Switzerland. He employs these to investigate the origin of the universal matter-antimatter asymmetry at the KEK laboratory in Japan and the origin of mass at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland. Both experiments probe conditions that last existed less than one-billionth of a second after the Big Bang.


Martin has published over 230 papers in refereed journals and has supervised 11 PhD students to completion. In the middle of 2005 Martin and some colleagues at the School of Physics decided that they could make a useful contribution to the nuclear energy debate in Australia. They put together a website, http://nuclearinfo.net, containing information about the issues relating to nuclear power. The website went live in December 2005. Since then Martin has made numerous contributions to the discussion of energy futures in Australia, including presentations to environmental groups, debates, conferences, opinion pieces to newspapers, and many radio and TV interviews. Welcome, Martin.

Prof. SEVIOR — Thank you very much, Chair. Here at the beginning of the 21st century humans have built a civilisation that enables around 1 billion people to live their lives in unprecedented comfort. We live in large, comfortable homes which are warm in winter and cool in summer; food is abundant and cheap; we have access to cheap transportation that allows us to travel to many different places; and we have access to health care that enables us to lead good lives to 80 years and beyond. We are regularly bombarded with opportunities for many entertainments. The base requirement for this civilisation to work is access to large amounts of cheap power. Without this our civilisation would basically grind to a halt.

A very large fraction of the rest of humanity aspires to these same living standards, and a conservative projection of current world economic growth implies that world energy consumption will be over twice what it presently is by 2050. However, we face two fundamental limits on the way we conduct our affairs. Over 85 per cent of the power used by our civilisation comes from the combustion of fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal in the atmosphere. The first of these constraints is the fact that we have a limited amount of oil and natural gas. The second comes from the ability of the earth’s atmosphere to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels.

In the discussion of global warming it is usually assumed that fossil fuels are essentially infinite and that business as usual will enable our consumption of these to grow without limit. That is almost certainly not the case. We have already consumed about half of our endowment of conventional crude oil. It is rather easy on very general grounds to show that after this occurs it is not possible to increase the rate of consumption of oil, and in fact the maximum monthly oil production was recorded in May 2005 — over two years ago now. It appears almost certain that crude oil production will reach its maximum rates of production in the next 10 years and thereafter decline, never to surpass this production rate. The result of this is that the price of oil has increased substantially.

To fill the gap, natural gas consumption has increased, but natural gas is also a finite resource and is expected to reach its maximum production rate within the next 20 years. Taken together, consumption of oil and gas results in 60 per cent of global CO2 emissions. From the point of view of reducing the greenhouse gas effect, the decline in availability of oil and gas is very helpful. However, we are left with the prospect of finding alternatives to powering our civilisation without these extremely useful fuels. Globally we have plenty of coal, but if we burn it in the atmosphere at the rate needed to make up for the shortfall in oil and gas, we will likely cause dangerous global climate change. This is particularly the case for Australia. The decrease in rainfall observed in Victoria over the last 10 years is exactly what is expected from models of the effects of global warming caused by the emission of CO2. If we wish to have any influence over the course of world events regarding greenhouse gas emissions, we must curtail our use of standard coal-fired power stations, which are responsible for over 50 per cent of our CO2

emissions.

The consensus of climate researchers is that globally we must reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. At the same time global energy consumption is forecast to rise by at least a factor of two. Meeting these two is incredibly difficult. The challenge of the next 50 years is to provide wealth for humans with alternative power sources to fossil fuels, which currently supply 88 per cent of the power requirements of the world. It is very hard to convey how hard it will be to meet this demand without the increased use of nuclear power. There are three large-scale energy sources which have the possibility to increase over the next 50 years: coal, nuclear power and unconventional renewable energy sources. I fully expect non-conventional renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to greatly expand in the future, but because of their intermittent nature it is very difficult for solar and wind to provide more than about 20 or 30 per cent of grid requirements.

Nuclear power, which results from the fissioning or breaking apart of uranium nuclei, emits around 10 million times the energy of chemical reactions like you get when you burn oil. Consequently the amount of fuel needed for nuclear power is a tiny fraction of that required for a fossil fuel plant, and the amount of waste produced is a tiny fraction of that from fossil fuels. A 1 gigawatt coal-fired power station burns around 3.5 million tonnes of coal and emits around 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The same size nuclear power plant requires 30 tonnes


of enriched uranium originating from around 200 tonnes of natural uranium per year. It generates 30 tonnes of high-level waste. Twenty-years worth of radioactive waste can be stored in an area the size of a suburban car park. Uranium is not a particularly rare element; it is approximately as common as tin, which has been mined for over 5000 years. Unlike oil, where we have used about half of the earth’s reserves, or gas where we have used about one-third, we have extracted less than one thousandth of the easily-minable uranium. Of the amount mined, we have consumed less than 1 per cent of the energy contained within. The price of uranium is about one-tenth to one-thirtieth of the cost of natural gas for the same delivered electricity, and that is right now, before we have this peak gas scenario. Like wind and solar power, nuclear power emits some CO2, but it is an order of magnitude-or-more, less than coal or gas-fired power stations. Unlike solar and wind, nuclear power can be scaled back to provide all the electricity we need — for example, France uses it to generate about 80 per cent of her electricity.

Many countries around the world have examined the constraints on fossil fuel consumption due to their availability, which is their price, and CO2 emissions. Nuclear power works at large scale, is potentially cheap, is greenhouse friendly, and its fuel is abundant to needlessly stockpile. These are the reasons it is under serious consideration for an expanded role in many countries. Third-generation nuclear power plants currently under construction are estimated to be 10 to 100 times as safe as the plants built in the 1980s, as well as being one-half to one-third of the price. Vendors market nuclear power plants are designed with costs in the range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion per gigawatt. At that price Australia could replace its current coal-fired power stations with nuclear over 20 years at a cost of less than 0.15 per cent of GDP per year; and this would reduce our CO2 emissions by 50 per cent.

In making this speech, I am very aware that I have only given you some guidelines for deliberations. I urge you to do your own independent research, and to crosscheck the numbers and opinions you find in your investigations. There are plenty of people who have opinions on this, and all of you are capable of addressing those opinions and doing the numbers. It is basically VCE maths; it is nothing particularly complicated. Do your own research, do your own investigations, and see what you see.


The CHAIR — Thank you very much. I am sure the speakers will have noticed that noise which tells you that you have got 1 minute to go.

Our next speaker is the first speaker against the proposition that future nuclear Victorian power generation plants should include a nuclear energy option. I introduce Tilman Ruff, who is associate professor in the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne. He is also an infectious diseases and public health physician; medical adviser for the International Department of Australian Red Cross; technical adviser on immunisation in Pacific island countries for UNICEF and AusAID; president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia); member of the board of directors of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW, Nobel Peace prize 1985); and chair of the Australian Management Committee for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, supported by Poola Foundation. I welcome Tilman Ruff.

Prof. RUFF — Thank you, Chair. I am here because of my responsibility as a doctor to protect life and to provide the conditions for health without fear or favour, and because of the profound responsibility I feel as a parent. I am honoured to speak to you on something of critical importance not only to your future and all of our futures, but the future of all living things on the planet. In 1945 everything changed. With near misses repeatedly threatening to unleash nuclear devastation, we are all here 62 years later, more by good luck than good planning. Arundhati Roy wrote:

The nuclear bomb is the most antidemocratic, antinational, antihuman, outright evil thing that man has ever made.

If you are religious, then remember that this bomb is man’s challenge to God. It is worded quite simply, ‘We have the power to destroy everything that You have created’.

If you are not religious then look at it this way. This world of ours is 4600 million years old. It could end in an afternoon.

Albert Einstein warned:

The splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.


Just one of today’s 27 000 nuclear weapons, 5000 of which are on hair-trigger alert, can unleash more explosive power than was used throughout the whole of the Second World War. One hundred Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs, less than 0.1 per cent of the global nuclear arsenal, could not only kill immediately tens of millions of people, but cause climatic consequences that would impair food production across the world and persist for over a decade.

Why am I talking about nuclear weapons, you might ask — the world’s worst weapons of terror? Because the same process that fuels the bomb fuels nuclear reactors. Nuclear technology works through ionising radiation, causing cancer and genetic damage through disrupting our most precious legacy — the DNA blueprint we receive from our parents and pass on to future generations through our children. A dose of radiation containing about the same energy as the heat in a cup of coffee can be lethal to a human being. The risks are proportional to the dose; there is no level of radiation where there is no risk.

When it comes out of a nuclear reactor, uranium can only end up as one of two things: weapons or waste. The radioactivity is not the same as it was in the uranium that came out of the ground. It is increased about a million-fold. After 50 years of nuclear power the world has produced more than 250 million tonnes of radioactive waste; 10 000 tonnes of it is highly radioactive. The time frames are hard to comprehend. This most toxic of all wastes must be kept in absolute security for at least half a million years.

One of the most important constituents, plutonium-239, has a half life of 24 400 years. Plutonium created today will be declined to one thousandth of its original level in a quarter of a million years. Neanderthals were around 30 000 years ago; 12 000 years ago there was no settled agriculture; human writing was invented about 6000 years ago. Not only is no permanent radioactive waste repository likely to be operating for at least another decade, but we will only know in retrospect whether it has worked. We can have no idea what social institutions will be around in 1000 years, let alone a quarter of a million years; what language will be spoken, nor whether people will even know where the repository is, or what is in it, in 10 000 generations time.

These geological time frames make our preoccupation with the current complexion of human affairs largely irrelevant. Just 30 years ago, a blink in geological time, Australia was ready to sell uranium to Iran — unthinkable now. The toxic and potentially weapons-usable material we have created will still be around long after current safeguards, agreements, governments and political leaders are long gone. There are no failsafe systems designed or operated by humans. A former US nuclear regulatory commissioner said:

The abiding lesson that Three Mile Island taught Wall Street was that a group of NRC-licensed reactor operators, as good as any others, could turn a $2 billion asset into a $1 billion clean-up job in about 90 minutes.

I heard the Soviet Minister of Atomic Energy say that the risk of a catastrophic reactor accident was remote, negligible, way under 1 in 1 million. That was the year before Chernobyl, caused not by bad design but by human error and wilful behaviour. The world’s worst industrial catastrophe spread radioactive fallout across Europe. The International Agency for Research on Cancer conservatively estimates 16 000 thyroid cancers, 25 000 other cancers and 16 000 excess cancer deaths across Europe by 2065. Over 330 000 people were permanently evacuated, 600 000 were involved in the clean-up, 6 million live in areas with significant contamination, and almost 1 million hectares of land have been removed from agricultural production.

A new multi-billion dollar structure to contain the damaged reactor for just the next 100 years is urgently needed and comprehensive planning to deal with the waste and decommission the reactor fully is still missing. The cost is already hundreds of billions of dollars. Mikhail Gorbachev said:

Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing else; it showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for non-military purposes.

There has not been just one accident but there have been seven accidents involving damage to reactor cores with release of radioactivity — different types of reactors in four countries, including four such accidents in the US. Just in the last year we have seen significant nuclear accidents in Sweden, Germany and Japan. Accidents do not happen only in reactors. In 2004, eight months before it was discovered a leak at the Sellafield’s reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom leaked half an Olympic swimming pool, or 83 000 litres, of highly radioactive material containing enough plutonium for more than 30 nuclear weapons.


Nuclear reactors are probably the most attractive terrorist targets. The clean-up just in the United Kingdom for decommissioning its first generation of nuclear reactors is estimated to cost more than £90 billion. But the most serious problems related to nuclear power relate to its link with weapons. Countries such as South Africa and Pakistan have used highly enriched uranium for weapons, and others, like India, Israel and North Korea, have used plutonium.

Let us keep the most hazardous way to boil water 130 kilometres away, safely in the sun. Let us end nuclear technology and let us not add to the immorality of burdening the next 10 000 generations with the waste of the last two generations. A sustainable future is possible. It needs all hands on deck now. We can all be proud to help make it happen.


The CHAIR — Our next speaker for the proposition is Amit Golder. Amit is a 20-year-old arts/law student at Monash University. In 2006 he was named the best speaker at the Australian national debating championships and in the same year was winner of the Australian British Parliamentary Debating Championships. Earlier this year Amit was a semifinalist and the third best speaker at the Australasian Debating Championships. He has conducted debating training with Sudanese migrants, teenagers from regional New South Wales and nearly everyone in between, as part of his work with the not-for-profit organisation, Free Debate. Amit currently works at the Melbourne Assessment Prison.

Mr GOLDER — What I will be looking at in my speech is the need for nuclear power in the medium-to-long term. Before I do, I want to assess some of the risks that were offered to us by the opposition. I want to assess them on three levels. Firstly, the concept of a radiation risk: what we heard was that radiation of any form poses a risk and as such we should abandon nuclear power as an option.

Our response is threefold. Firstly, many materials in our life — in fact, most — emit some form of radiation; we exist in a radiation environment. We would point to the fact that table salt emits radiation because it is made of potassium. Heaven forbid — those in this chamber who use mobile phones are also exposed to radiation! We do not think that the threshold for abolishing something with massive amounts of power generation, especially cleaner and not CO2-emitting power generation, should be whether there is some risk of radiation.

Secondly, even if we do accept that there is some radiation risk inherent in nuclear power, our response is that the way you deal with that is with competent storage methods, methods that are improving every year as technology improves, methods that will improve only if Victoria improves its own and undertakes a nuclear power alternative. If Victoria were to undertake nuclear power as part of its power generation, it would not be unreasonable to expect the very storage methods involved to improve to meet those needs and challenges as the market demands them.

Regarding the accidents that we heard mentioned, what we would say quite simply is that those accidents, like at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, occurred something like 20 or 30 years ago, depending on which one you are talking about. Technology has significantly advanced since then and the human capacity to avoid these things is significant as well. What we would suggest is that the seven accidents that the opposition mentioned in this debate are not notable because they were terrible, catastrophic accidents but are notable because for many people, today was the first time you heard that there had been seven accidents. These were not accidents involving leaking of fissile material, these were not accidents involving deaths or deformities. These were accidents that occur in every walk of life that were managed and dealt with. There is no reason to believe that this would not happen in the future.

Regarding the idea that nuclear power could be a terrorist target, we would submit that anything can be a terrorist target, that the threat of something being a terrorist target should not militate against it being used, especially when, as my first speaker outlined, there is such a significant capacity for benefit, for power generation for millions of people in Victoria and for clean power generation not just for those people but for everyone in the future. We think that a slight risk of terrorism which exists in every walk of life should not be a preventive measure here.

We think that in the objection relating to the link that nuclear power has to nuclear weapons the link is not clear. We on this side of the house would love nuclear weapons to be abrogated and abolished as well, but we think that the context in which this debate occurs is a question of whether Victoria should have nuclear power. We do not think Victoria is going to have nuclear weapons, as much as we would like to invade Tasmania.


With that in mind, I want to have a look at two points. I want to have a look at Victoria’s long-term economic needs and why they need stable, cheap, accessible power, and how that power can come from nuclear. Martin has already told you that civilisations, especially competent, functional civilisations, are based on cheap, accessible power — the way we operate now. What I think is that Victoria’s long-term economic needs demand a sustainable and accessible power that nuclear power can provide. We have to put these power needs, and long-term power needs, in the context of radically approaching peak oil, in the context of global warming with rising temperatures, rising sea levels and the dangers that they pose. Specifically we look at something like Victorian commerce and Victorian business and we say that Victorian business needs power. That is pretty basic, but what kind of power do they need, though? We think Victorian business needs cheap power and guaranteed power. Cheap power to ensure a plurality of businesses exist so there is competition, and so that even those corporations which are not as large and which are not as able to deal with expensive power generation are able to compete in a market. But importantly we need guaranteed power sources, because all actions of commerce and all actions in our economy involve a degree of risk. It involves potentially losing money. People do not undertake that risk if they are not confident that that risk will be rewarded to some extent. What we think is that when power is not guaranteed people and businesses become less likely to take those risks because factories cannot expand and small businesses cannot expand. They are not able to guarantee their long-term future and take those same kinds of risks. We think if power is not guaranteed, business activity stagnates. This also applies to foreign investment in Victoria. We think for foreign corporations to invest in Victoria is likewise a large risk — a risk that will not be taken if Victorian might be very expensive or might not exist at all in the future.

Nuclear power offers the kind of power guarantees that encourage business to take risk, that encourage the proliferation of economies and the growth of our Victorian economy. That is the kind of thing that helps every single person on the ground — when your products become cheaper, when you and your family can get jobs. We think if guaranteed long-term power is essential, then we should try to guarantee that power the best way we can. We submit the best way we can guarantee that power is using a constellation of power-producing methods including nuclear power, because unlike other alternatives it is able to provide consistent baseload power and, unlike coal, it is able to do so without mortgaging the environment for it.

Lastly, I want to look at the long-term social needs at play in this debate. It is our submission that power, as my first speaker mentioned, is necessary for a functioning civil society. Moreover the absence of accessible power has serious implications for real people on the ground. What we think is that if nuclear power is flatly denied, as the opposition would like, the scarcity of power, or importantly an anticipated scarcity in power, results in a spike — an increase — in power prices. We think that is basic economics, so basic that even an arts student like me can get it. We think that those rising power prices are the kinds of things that are going to hurt people, hurt those people who can afford it least — people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who cannot afford spikes in power, who need to be able to, you know, switch on their televisions and have their air conditioning on even the hottest days of summer if they are not able to endure them as Sir Gus can. We would submit that it hurts those who are vulnerable, but more importantly those who are least able to afford alternative energy alternatives — things like buying energy-efficient homes, things like buying into optional renewable energy sources like with Red Energy or like installing a solar panel in your roof. That is not to mention the non-financial costs to individuals of relying on coal for the next 20 years, the non-financial costs of mortgaging our environment. We submit that the long-term needs, in concert with the needs put forward by my first speaker, justify nuclear power in Victoria.


The CHAIR — Our second speaker against the proposition is Tom O’Connor. At 20 years of age Tom O’Connor is the Victorian director of the Oaktree Foundation, Australia’s first youth-run aid and development organisation. He was recently named Young Victorian of the Year for 2007. Through campaigns like the Zero Seven Road Trip, the Make Poverty History concert and the Schools 4 Schools program Oaktree has mobilised 3000 volunteers all over Australia to stand up against poverty. Since 2003 Oaktree has improved access to education for over 25 000 young people in the developing world. Tom completed the International Baccalaureate at Pembroke School in South Australia, and was awarded a national scholarship to the University of Melbourne in 2005. Tom also represented Australia at the 2005 International Model United Nations in the Netherlands. Tom is a full-time student studying law, politics and philosophy at the University of Melbourne.

Mr O’CONNOR — The context of today’s debate and the central question we are addressing here today is how do we achieve intergenerational justice and equity in the context of climate change. Because if we are really honest the really bad impacts of climate change will only occur in about 2100 and beyond — they are not going to


occur now. The key issue for us here today is how do we leave future generations with a planet and a world that is as stable and beautiful as the one we are currently living in. Furthermore, as young people here today, I think intergenerational justice is particularly relevant because we are the ones who will have to deal with the world that is left behind.

In this context we on the negative side of the house reject the nuclear solution as the worst possible option that we could take. With nuclear power we place enormous economic and health burdens on future generations that are unjustifiable in the context of our current decisions. Uranium has a half-life of millions of years and we do not have a good or safe way of storing it, paying for it and keeping people safe from it. We think that we cannot justify leaving the next 10 000 generations with the responsibility of dealing with it.

My first speaker, Tilman Ruff, spoke about the health and proliferation risks of nuclear power. I am going to speak about the economic and environmental risks. I first want to address, though, the question of the baseload fallacy. Can renewable energy provide a baseload power generation capacity or, as the affirmative team has proposed, can only nuclear power do that? The basic point here is that the right mix of renewable energies, as determined by market pressures and by experimentation, can supply baseload power. The basic fact is there is no such thing as a perfectly reliable power station or electricity generation system.

The coal, oil and gas power that we are currently using is not perfectly reliable, and we would argue that that varies with demand and supply. We think we need to have three types of power supply: baseload, intermediate load and peak load. We think there are some renewable sources — like bioenergy, geothermal and solar thermal electricity that stores solar energy — that can actually provide baseload capacity, because they are not intermittent electricity-generating sources. Wind power that is geographically dispersed can provide near-to-baseload electricity generation capacity.

Furthermore, solar without storage and hydropower can supply peak-load power where power needs increase in the summer and certain times of the winter. Studies in Australia show that by 2040 renewable energy could account for over 50 per cent of Australia’s energy supply, thereby supplying our baseload capacity. We argue that the argument made by the first and second speakers in favour — that is, that nuclear energy is the only option for supplying the baseload — is a fallacy.

The second key point made today was that nuclear energy is safer due to better technologies. We would argue, however, that although Chernobyl and Three Mile Island occurred 20 or 30 years ago, they were the result of human error, and human error has not changed. We would argue that even if the technology is getting better, human error and human fallibility still exists. We would need to build nuclear power plant close to major cities to be able to justify the economic cost of them — near Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. We would argue that the risks that Tilman has talked about — the risks of a nuclear meltdown — are simply unjustifiable. Could you imagine if we had a nuclear meltdown outside Melbourne or Sydney that caused thousands of cancers into the future? The problem would not just be for today, it would be for generations to come.

Let us talk about the economics of nuclear power. The basic point is that all existing studies and current costings underestimate the cost of nuclear energy by billions of dollars. Nuclear energy is an enormously costly enterprise, and there are massive capital costs associated with building reactors. There are also massive costs in terms of reactor efficiency and performance and in investment in research and development. We would argue that the current studies that say that nuclear power is a cheap option are actually ridiculous, because they incorporate certain interest rates and discount rates that are far below what should be undertaken. The fact is that it takes a lot of capital to invest in building reactors, even though they have low operational costs further down the track. If you use a very low interest rate associated with financing a nuclear reactor, you are going to come out with a much cheaper price for nuclear energy than is the real cost.

Let us talk about the cost of decommissioning reactors, because the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority recently undertook the decommissioning of reactors from the 50s and 60s. That is costing £90 billion. Originally it was estimated that it would cost in the vicinity of millions of pounds rather than billions. We would argue that there are long-term costs that would be borne by future generations than are not being incorporated into the cost of nuclear energy. We would also argue that there is an opportunity cost associated with not investing in renewable energy and tapping into emerging global markets in renewable energy technologies. The fact is that the monetary investment required to scale up nuclear energy to a sufficient level would preclude significant investment in renewable technologies. As much as our affirmative team want to suggest that we can have the best of both


worlds — they want to have their cake and eat it too — we would argue that it is not possible to invest enough money in both nuclear power and renewables to be able to make both as good as they could be. This would stunt the development of Australia’s already underdeveloped renewable energy industry. Whereas there are emerging global markets in Europe and across Asia for renewable energies, Australia would lose access to these markets in the long term. The European Union has recently set a target of 60 per cent reductions in carbon emissions by 2050, and China has set renewable energy targets of 20 per cent by 2020. These are markets that we can tap into, but we will not be able to invest in nuclear energy as opposed to renewable technologies.

Let us finally talk about the environmental affects, because we would argue that nuclear energy actually has minor environmental benefits. Over all nuclear power would only cause a 5 per cent reduction in global emissions if we double the current nuclear generation capacity, because the fact is that nuclear energy only addresses electricity, which is only 30 per cent of the carbon emissions and of the greenhouse effect. We would further argue that nuclear energy offers disincentives to change our unsustainable lifestyles. We see that India and China are emerging players and the quality of life across the world is improving, but we cannot sustain the lifestyles that Australia and America currently sustain. With nuclear power coming on board, that is going to provide disincentives to changing our lifestyles. Nuclear energy is unsafe, uneconomic and unenvironmental, and we are very proud to oppose nuclear power in Victoria.


The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Tom.

Delegates, now it is your turn to have a part in this debate, so I will be calling for questions in a moment. When you come to the table, please state your name and identify the school you are from. We ask that the questions be fairly brief and the person who is asked a question will have 1 minute to respond. You can ask them questions to clarify what they have said or ask them another question, but is not the time for you to give your views. We will do that later on in the day. Would anyone like to ask the first question?

Miss FORREST — My question is for Amit Golder. Can you clarify how treating 200 000 tonnes of radioactive waste is not mortgaging the environment?

Mr GOLDER — Sassy! I would suggest two things. Firstly, you have to balance it against the long-term and irreversible harm of climate change — when Pacific islands sink, we cannot fish them out. I would also suggest that those things are much more manageable than climate change because changing the entire earth’s heating structure is a little bit harder than accurately dealing with nuclear waste, which actually does not take up that much space, and can be dealt with safety.

Mr WHAN — My question is to Amit: you said global warming causes long-term and irreversible damage, but how does nuclear waste not also cause long-term damage if it takes millions of years to break down?

The CHAIR — You are under the hammer here a bit, Amit, aren’t you?

Mr GOLDER — I would first point out that I am not the nuclear scientist of the team; Martin is.

Prof. SEVIOR — Do you mind if I answer that question?

The CHAIR — Is that okay with you, Amit? Please do.

Prof. SEVIOR — The stuff that I am holding in my hand is radioactive. It will be radioactive for a billion years because it contains potassium. the potassium in this salt shaker is about one-quarter of the potassium in your body. Radiation is part of our environment; it is not that it eventually breaks down after some period of time. The issue is how you isolate something that is toxic from the biosphere. That is a different question; that is a question that is quite addressable and is addressed constantly in a modern technological society. We produce toxic waste every day. If there is anybody here from the goldfields, from Bendigo, there is a substantial amount of arsenic used in the extraction of gold from goldmines. Arsenic is dangerous forever, it is never going to be safe. The only way it is safe is because people isolate it from the environment.

Mr GREEN — I am directing this question to the first speaker on the positive side, Professor Sevior. How do you respond to the ethical ramifications of enriching uranium in a society that has had such a negative perspective on the enrichment of uranium by North Korea, Iran and supposedly Iraq?


Prof. SEVIOR — I would just like to point out that the uranium enrichment level used in a nuclear reactor is nowhere near sufficient to actually make a nuclear weapon. That is the first thing — you cannot make a bomb from the stuff that goes into a nuclear reactor.

The other point is that this is a really good question. The technology that you use for enriching uranium is the technology that you use to make a nuclear weapon, to make bomb-grade uranium. The point is that this technology is out of the bag. There is nothing we can do to stop Iran making a nuclear weapon, short of some military intervention. The point is that we have this massive problem — it is really hard to get double the amount of energy usage, which is basically what is required over the next 50 years, without using nuclear energy. This is something that everybody in the world has to deal with. We have to find global solutions to these two problems. I entirely agree with Dr Ruff about nuclear weapons, and I feel very uncomfortable making this argument. I would not be making this argument if I did not really see that it was necessary to do so.

The CHAIR — I let Martin have a bit longer than 1 minute because that was a really hard question to answer in a hurry.

Mr TUNSTALL — My question is for Professor Ruff. I would like to ask how the cost of nuclear energy compares with that of renewable energy. Is nuclear or renewable energy more expensive?

Prof. RUFF — Currently the cost that is projected — and it is difficult to do, because most of the costs are provided by the industry, which obviously has interests, and because there have been very few reactors built in developed countries in recent decades — there is only one reactor currently under construction in an industrialised country, in Finland. All of the best estimates of the costs suggest that nuclear is currently about comparable to wind, in favourable sites. Obviously it is a bit hard to make a weapon of mass destruction with a wind turbine, it is not a particularly attractive terrorist target, and the waste is not really much of an issue.

As Tom outlined earlier, we will not know about the costs for a very long time. The £90 billion that the United Kingdom has committed — just for the first 25 years — to decommission its current nuclear reactors is four times as much as British Nuclear Fuels say that new nuclear electricity generated in the UK will cost, so you can see that the potential long-term issues, as well course as any serious accidents, would simply blow the costs out of the water. The only reason this industry has survived is because people want it for other reasons — for prestige, for access to weapons and so forth.

Mr BUCHANAN — Mr O’Connor, you spoke about nuclear power fuelling our unsustainable lifestyle. Do you believe that the only way that we can make renewable energy a baseload energy supplier is if we do cut down our lifestyles?

Mr O’CONNOR — I guess our response to that would be we do not think that without energy efficiency, renewable technologies will provide the answer. We think that a combination of the two is needed. But we think that is important in the context of nuclear energy, which is not infinite anyway. We think we do need to reduce the level of consumption we currently have. If you consider that in the world today only 8 per cent of the world’s population drive a car, and if that figure doubled, what would be the effects on our climate then? If we all live the kind of lifestyles we do in Australia and the US, it will simply not be sustainable for our environment. It is a combination of efficiency and renewables, and that will be a good thing in the long term.

Mr DEHGHANI — I have a question for Amit and Martin. You both spoke about how everyday life has risks involved in it, which is fair enough; it does. So why should we add another one to it? Why should we add more risks if we already have enough?

Prof. SEVIOR — Thank you very much for that question. This is entirely why I am in this debate. I would argue that the risks of attempting to meet our power needs without something like nuclear power far outweigh the risks of actually running a nuclear power station. I think it is far more dangerous for us to have unsustainable, unpredictable power through fluctuations in power loads than it is to actually operate a nuclear power station.

Miss CANNON — This is addressed to the first speaker. I was just wondering, if you cannot make a bomb from the uranium used to make nuclear energy, how is it possible to blow up a nuclear reactor?


Prof. SEVIOR — I will just clarify the question. Are you asking what is the danger of a nuclear reactor if it is not going to blow up?

Miss CANNON — Yes, how is it possible to blow up if — —

Prof. SEVIOR — It will not. That is the whole point. The whole point of a nuclear power reactor, especially a modern one, is that if it loses its cooling capability, if it loses the water that cools it, then the reaction stops and no more fission happens. The danger occurs if in the process of losing the water the fuel elements become exposed and melt down. That is the danger that you have to design against. These modern power reactors have employed principles of physics, like pressurisation, gravity feeds, valves that fail-safe close — so if something goes wrong, they close and water comes in and keeps everything covered up. Because of this you can do probabilistic risk assessments that estimate the core damage frequency — how often this actually happens — to be 1 in 2 million years. Those are entirely reasonable and entirely correct projections.

Mr ALLILOMOU — I would like to address a question to Mr Tom O’Connor. Near the end of your speech you claimed that at the end of the day nuclear power would be ineffective because power production only amounts to 30 per cent of the carbon emissions. I do not see, opposed to your idea of renewable energy, how that will make a difference? At the end of the day renewable energy will only impact on 30 per cent of carbon emissions, so I really do not see the relevance of such a quote. Was there a point to it or was it just a sound byte.?

Mr O’CONNOR — I guess there are two points there. The first point is that we need to make a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but a 5 per cent reduction really is not going to help that much. The second point is that adding a whole lot of energy through nuclear energy to our grid will actually create a disincentive for people to actually conserve power. The public perception of having a lot of power available will mean, firstly, they will believe they do not have to conserve power or use it more efficiently. Secondly, the very fact of having more power available will mean that people will simply use more appliances, leave lights on and that kind of thing. The basic fact is that, firstly, nuclear power will only cause a small reduction in our energy usage, and secondly, nuclear power will actually cause disincentives to environmental conservation. Inn the long term will prevent us from taking up renewable energies which we can take up now and not wait until the future when nuclear power runs out. Does that address your question?

Mr ALLILOMOU — Yes.

Miss POLITIS— I have a question to Professor Sevior. Due to the finite nature of uranium are there possible future economic ramifications when new methods have to be discovered to create a reliable baseload of energy?

Prof. SEVIOR — I gather your question is along the lines of what happens when uranium runs out?

Miss POLITIS— Yes.

Prof. SEVIOR — Okay. The point here is that we have actually mined a tiny fraction of the available uranium we have on the earth. It is something like one-thousandth of the accessible uranium. With the price of uranium going up more and more people are looking for uranium and finding it. So this process will continue as long as there is the demand. Essentially the world’s mining companies will find as much uranium as there is demand for it. The difference with oil, which I talked about before, is that we have actually extracted about half of the oil we know of. From reasonable projections we know how much oil there is in the world, and we have taken half of it out. That is the other requirement. This is other reason I am in this debate, because literally we do not have a choice. We do not have a choice to continue to use oil and natural gas. Even in Victoria and Australia where we have a lot of natural gas the price of natural gas will inevitably rise as the rest of the world uses it. We will almost certainly move to world market prices for natural gas, and it will not be particularly cheap.

Mr GOULD — I have a question for the affirmative team. You said that radioactivity is natural in everyday life. Last time I checked, splitting atoms is not all that natural. Why should we use something so unnatural when we have got alternatives such as renewable energy, like solar?

Prof. SEVIOR — This is another reason I am in this debate. If I seriously thought we could make everything work as we currently do with renewable energy, I would not be here. If you try to make it work with biomass, then you have the problem: what are we going to do when we keep having droughts and when we cannot


grow the food we need, let alone burn it? Geothermal is a long way in the future, and there are all sorts of problems with it. It is not the least bit clear that it is going to work. From that perspective nuclear is a means of providing us with the energy we need. That is basically where I am at. I am not saying it is natural, although it has occurred naturally. There was a natural reactor about 2 billion years ago, and the waste from that natural reactor stayed exactly where it was, under the ground in Oklo in Africa. It is a process that has happened in nature, and it is a process that we can usefully use to provide the energy we need.

Mr MOHAMMED — My question is directed to the affirmative team. Amit stated that the Chernobyl incident was 30 years ago. Technology has advanced since then. As it was technology that first established nuclear energy, if technology advances, who is to say that the danger will not advance?

Prof. SEVIOR — The thrust of the technology is to reduce the danger and not to increase it. That is the whole point of it, and that is the whole point of these next-generation reactors. They are designed so that operator intervention is far less necessary. Instead of having a lot of active systems to detect if something goes wrong, to open valves, to start up pumps and do whatever is necessary to keep this reactor core covered, you have a system which, via fail-safe techniques, will naturally serve to keep the core covered up. That is the thrust of the technology — to make things safer.

Mr OAKFORD — My question is to the affirmative team. I have probably been watching too much TV, but every time I see something about nuclear waste, it is always in a big barrel coming out of a nuclear factory. I am just thinking if only one-thousandth, or whatever it is, has been mined, is that not going to build up to a lot of barrels of nuclear waste just sitting somewhere? Also, with all the wars and stuff going on such as random bombs flying everywhere in Iraq, there would have been so much oil just blown up. If there are thousands of barrels of this toxic waste, which is quite flammable and would explode as they make nuclear bombs out of it, how is that a positive thing to have everywhere?

Prof. SEVIOR — There are many conflicting ideas there. The first is that it is not flammable in the least; it does not burn, it fissions. The second is that the most dangerous component, the high-level waste, is contained in very large concrete containers right now, and the proposal is to put them back underground again. The third thing that is almost certainly going to happen anyway over the next 20 or 30 years is that advanced nuclear reactors are being developed right now which consume this waste and burn it in fuel. So a large fraction of this waste will probably get consumed over the next 200 or 300 years, generating the next generation’s worth of electricity.

Mr KHER — This question is directed to Amit. What are your thoughts on countries which have undertaken to use nuclear power and are using it, such as Sweden, which has spent $14 billion on nuclear waste management and at present is actually decommissioning its power plants? What is your response to this, and do you not think we should take it into consideration?

Mr GOLDER — Yes, we definitely should take that into consideration, because this choice is never going to be an easy one, and that is why there is a debate. In response to Sweden’s spending money on nuclear waste management we have two responses: firstly, that money comes directly from the state’s sale of electricity, which can be generated thanks to nuclear power; it is able to fund itself. Secondly, naturally as production increases, as the scale increases, as time and technology improve, costs will go down because of better waste management techniques, and the scale of those waste management techniques will necessarily reduce the cost as well.

Miss NOVAKOVIC — I have another question for either speaker on the affirmative team about nuclear waste. Where would you dispose of it where it will not harm the environment or the land around?

Prof. SEVIOR — I will explain a little bit about modern waste encapsulation techniques. You have to remember that the amount of high-level waste that comes out of a reactor is not actually that much. It is around 15 cubic metres in volume and as such is relatively easy to contain. What you can do is encase it in a copper canister which does not erode in an anaerobic environment — that is, an environment where there is a lot of water but the oxygen has been removed. The copper does not corrode under those circumstances. What you do then is embed it in bentonite clay. Bentonite clay has a property that makes it expand when it is subjected to water. Then you take the whole construction and put it 500 metres underground. An obvious place to put it would be in an area where there is very ancient groundwater such as in outback Australia, because when the bentonite clay expands from being embedded in this water, it naturally provides a corrosion-resistant environment. Bentonite clays by


themselves, even should the copper decay, have been observed to contain materials within them. For example, trees and old pieces of organic materials have been preserved for over 500 000 years in these things.

Miss BUBB — I have a question for the affirmative team: are there sufficient places in Australia with the geological structure that would be appropriate for a nuclear power plant?

Prof. SEVIOR — Yes, very briefly. Australia has nothing like the dangers of earthquakes that a country like Japan has. Japan suffers earthquakes at an alarming frequency. I have worked there and I felt a lot of them. Basically having been employed in Japan I know that at a large-scale 30 per cent of Japan’s electricity comes from nuclear power. So from a geological perspective, yes, it is fine here.

Mr GONSALVES — The affirmatives said that being prosperous Victoria has to go nuclear, but what would happen if an accident were to happen? Would not business then go away?

Mr GOLDER — If a large-scale accident happened, yes, there would be a lot of problems for people and business, but I think the risk is not as substantial as a lot of people make out. But more importantly, that is a risk, a potential, which you can measure in percentage terms, whereas the benefits of having nuclear power, guaranteed power, to corporate activity, to increased risk-taking — the stuff I was talking about — are much more guaranteed than the risks. So if you balance it on probabilities it is much more likely that the benefits will significantly outweigh those detriments. Yes, potentially those detriments might exist, but on balance, I am still supporting this side.

Miss LA ROCHE — To Martin or Amit: based on the attitudes most people have been showing, this is a bit of a negative one towards nuclear, but do you think that might come from things such as the media — the stereotypes and the views that it poses? Because Australia is quite new to the idea of nuclear do you think that affects how your argument comes across?

Prof. SEVIOR — In a nutshell, yes. It is very easy to make a negative case for nuclear power because it is essentially a dangerous activity. It really is. The problem is: how do we maintain what we are interested in; how do we have everybody in the world drive their own car; how do we have people not starve all over the world? This is the thing that we have got to balance against. It is very easy for someone to say, ‘Yes, we can do it. Renewable energy — we have got tons of sunlight, we have got tons of wind’. But if you actually try to make it work, that is the problem. I would not be here if I thought it could work.

Mr WARDHEN — Professor Ruff spoke about the fact that the same stuff filling our nuclear reactors was going to fill nuclear bombs and that potentially the fuel for nuclear reactors, if misused, could go into nuclear bombs. What is your take on the fact that 3 to 4 per cent enrichment is needed for nuclear reactors, yet about 97 per cent is needed for uranium nuclear bombs?

Prof. RUFF — You can make nuclear bombs with two fissile materials, out of one or two things: one is highly enriched uranium and the other is plutonium. The technology that you need to enrich uranium from the 0.7 per cent that contains the uranium-235 isotope that is in the ground to the 4 or 5 per cent to use in a nuclear reactor is exactly the same technology, materials, equipment and skills required to enrich it a bit further. Two-thirds of the work of getting to weapons-grade uranium, better than 80 per cent uranium-235, is done by getting it to reactor grade. All you need to do is to run it through the centrifuges — the most common way of enriching uranium — a few more times. There is no way of separating that capacity. At the other end plutonium is inevitably produced when uranium atoms in a reactor absorb neutrons. That plutonium can be extracted by a relatively simple chemical process, dissolving the fuel rods in acid and extracting the plutonium.

These are the two points — at the front and at the end where weapons risk arises. As long as you have a free-for-all, as we currently do in the world, in enrichment potential and in plutonium — reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium — then there is the risk of nuclear weapons being developed. We have seen many countries have done this, and many others could; there are about 44 countries. Anybody who has got a research reactor, an enrichment plant and the capacity to reprocess spent fuel can potentially produce a nuclear weapon. Whether we go


further down the nuclear power route or not, we have a very serious issue to manage. The best way of dealing with this issue would be to do, finally, what resolution 101 — the very first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 — called for, which was the abolition of nuclear weapons and the international control of nuclear energy. That would mean that internationalising — putting under international safeguards and control — the capacity to enrich uranium and not allowing any reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel would be ways of dramatically increasing the safety and reducing the proliferation potential of nuclear technology for as long as it is around.

Mr GOULD — I have a question for the negative team. If we were to use renewable energy such as solar, how many panels would we need to power, say, Victoria or Australia, and the same for wind power?

Prof. RUFF — The potential of renewables is enormous. We have shamefully lost many years in Australia, in seriously addressing this issue. If anything like the subsidies that have gone to nuclear power had been devoted to renewable energy resources, we could be a lot further down the track. Germany is a small, not very sunny, not very windy, place which is making extraordinary strides. It produces currently more wind energy than almost the rest of the world put together. If the United Kingdom increased its wind power capacity at the same rate as Germany has done, it could completely replace its nuclear reactors before a first new reactor could be built. There is also a very great slowness in developing nuclear technology. It takes at least 10 years to get a reactor up and before you start getting net energy out of it, it is another 10 or 15 years, so we need to be getting serious about climate change and reducing our emissions a long time before 25 to 30 years away. The solar radiation that hits the earth is about 10 000 times the total of all human energy requirements. Sure, harnessing that is a real challenge, but it can be done.

Miss McNAMARA — I have a question for Martin. As Australia has the largest resources of thorium in the world, what are the benefits of using thorium instead of uranium to generate energy, and would this be a useful alternative for Australia?

Prof. SEVIOR — Thorium is an alternative source of nuclear energy. It has been studied in small scale for a long time. If it can be made to work, the benefit is that the long-lived transuranics are not produced by the thorium cycle. On the other hand the technology for making it work is nowhere near as developed as the uranium cycle. That said, it is reasonable to think that with sufficient investment it could be made to work. So then the question is: is it worth making that investment? There are a lot of drains on our scientific expertise to develop renewable energies — solar energies and all these other things. The question is: how much effort do we put in that direction?

Mr ASSAFIRI — This is to Martin. When we come into a debate on nuclear power, many of us think of the fried fish from The Simpsons. If there was a leakage — and I specify ‘if’ — would there be any mutations in our environment or even in us?

Prof. SEVIOR — Like anything, it is a question of degree. The effect of genetic mutations is a well-measured biological process and the rate at which that happens is basically proportional to how much radiation is available. Almost all mutations are not beneficial for the host organism and result in spontaneous abortions, so basically nothing much happens. Then it is a question of: how big was the leak? Then you come back to the whole point of having this argument about what is safe and what is not safe and that is what the nuclear industry addresses.

Miss HAN — I have a question for the affirmative team. I am just going to go back to the risks thing. I was wondering what you would say to the fact that you are risking other people’s lives and what do you think the public would have to say about that?

Prof. SEVIOR — I am finding it difficult to keep my temper. The whole point is to minimise the risk. It is very difficult to explain how hard it is to make wind and solar energy scale up to the amount of power that we need to replace our coal-fired power stations. Just to give you an example, the Victorian government has done an excellent job in promoting renewable energy and if all goes well — everything works perfectly — we will have 10 per cent of our electricity produced by renewable energy by 2015. None of that will reduce the amount of CO2

that we actually emit from our coal-fired power stations. In fact I expect that shortly there will be a new gas-fired power station built to produce more electricity for us. Perhaps the announcement will be made in a year or two from now. So this is not actually addressing the problem. The problem is the CO2 emissions. You can replace those coal-fired power stations with nuclear in a way that actually keeps us having electricity and energy as we need it. 10 September 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention

22

That is the risk. It is not the risk of a nuclear accident, which is very, very small. That is the risk that people have to be focused on: how are we going to do this; how are we going to keep our comfortable lives or even reasonable lives going?

Miss KAISER — Martin, you twice briefly mentioned water. I was just wondering if nuclear is going to be another factor in our lack of rainfall. Will we just be using an incredible amount of water in this?

Prof. SEVIOR — Nuclear power is a thermal cycle, which means it basically boils water, like coal-fired power stations or advanced gas-fired power stations. One of the benefits of nuclear power stations is that you can actually locate them exactly where you want them. You do not have to put them at the end of a coal mine; you can locate them near the coast and they can use sea water for cooling. So the amount of water that is needed for an appropriately located nuclear reactor is substantially less than we are using in the Latrobe Valley right now. With that energy, we can use it to make more water by desalination. We can do it without making greenhouse gases.

The CHAIR — Could I ask people who have asked a question before not to stand up to ask another question until we run out of questions, because I would like everybody to have the opportunity to ask at least one question.

Miss MUIR — For the affirmative team: if we decide to basically go with nuclear technology, can they ensure that we would not ever have a major accident?

Prof. SEVIOR — The answer to that is no, of course. All you can do is measure risks. The risk is: with the next generation, core damage frequency 1 per 2 million years of operation; or the next level, if it is not contained within a containment, 1 part in 40 million years. So it is a very, very small risk, but it is not zero.

Mr HOLMES — Martin, do not sit down. Can you just point out to any nay-sayers about nuclear accidents, especially regarding Chernobyl, the type of reactor that was used, as opposed to modern reactors that are used now?

Prof. SEVIOR — This is a really going point. The Chernobyl reactor was not — is not — a pressurised water reactor or a boiling water reactor. It was basically graphite moderated, water cooled, which is basically exactly the wrong combination you want if you want to make a safe nuclear plant. In addition, the control rods — the components that are meant to stop the nuclear reactor — actually have a carbon tip on the end of them so when you first put these control rods into the reactor, the reaction rate speeds up. It is not appropriate to say that this was a good design at all, it was a terrible design. It was a terrible design in combination with operator error that caused the accident.

The CHAIR — I might ask no-one else to stand up apart from those who are already to ask questions at the table, because I think we will probably run out of time. If we do not, I can call you up.

Miss BURNS-WILLIAMSON — I was just wondering — this is to the affirmative — do you believe that nuclear energy would be the sole answer? Seeing as Victoria has a lot of renewable energy such as our wind farms down in Portland and elsewhere, do you not believe a combination of both could work just as well?

Mr GOLDER — I will give Martin a rest. We completely agree. It should be a variety of power generation sources acting in concert, but the need and the ultimate aim is to provide base load consistent power that will not be intermittent, that will not be questioned, that will not fail and will not seem like it might fail. It is both the fact that it might fail and the risks inherent in that which would prohibit action and potentially hurt people — doing things like raising prices like I talked about. We are not negating alternative energies, what we are doing is putting them in a realistic context of a Victoria with growing power needs every year, with the need to provide base load power, and suggesting that base load power can come from nuclear. Certainly supplementary and augmented power can come from other sources.

Miss WARD — I have got a question for the affirmative team. If we were to go ahead with nuclear power, whereabouts in Victoria would you put it?

Prof. SEVIOR — That is a really good question. The cheapest places to put it would be probably in the lower Latrobe Valley where there is already a large-scale electrical distribution system, but there are other places. You could imagine Portland would be a reasonable place since it has access to the ocean and there are already large


powerlines going there. But having said that, I am very well aware that this is an open society and I do not think that we should employ nuclear power if people do not want it. As far as I am concerned, I will try and make the best I can and hope that we can make things work without it if that is the will of the people here.

The CHAIR — Perhaps just in a practical sense I can contribute that at the moment the current state government is opposed to nuclear energy so the only sites that could be used in Victoria are on land owned by the commonwealth government.

Mr POWER — As Australia’s involvement in foreign matters increases, so does our risk of becoming a terrorist target. Do you think it is a good idea to put nuclear power plants which could be easily infiltrated near our capital cities?

Mr GOLDER — I think that is an important question in assessing risks. What we would suggest is that Australia as a terrorist target is often overplayed in the media in a way that is designed to sell papers and things like that. Australia is not at that much of a credible risk of terrorism. More importantly, if you actually analyse the aims, goals and methods of terrorists, it would not be in a group like al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah’s interests to strike at a nuclear power facility because they are not there to cripple societies and wage war, what they are there to do is cause mass casualties, disrupt people’s lives in a more fundamental way. Hitting symbolic targets like tourist places, hitting dense population areas is more designed to instil the kind of fear and theatre of violence that terrorists aim for rather than hitting power generation. New York’s infrastructure was not targeted, the World Trade Centre was, so I do not think nuclear power stations would necessarily form an extra target that would in any way change Victoria or Australia’s defence situation, especially when you balance the competing interests — the benefits would outweigh that minimal risk.

Miss DAVIES — To the negative team: Tilman, you said we need to keep immorality out of energy production. Who is to say something is right or wrong? If it is acceptable, it is moral. What are your thoughts?

The CHAIR — Tilman, can you answer that in 1 minute?

Prof. RUFF — I think the ethical questions are really profound when one is dealing with technology that has implications for all future generations, not just for us. The point that Tom made about intergenerational justice and equity is a really critical one here. It is not enough to think about just our current situation in terms of our short-term economic interests, our short-term lifestyle interests. By the way, across industrialised countries there are countries that have standards of living and quality of life higher than ours with about a tenth of the per capita energy consumption — there is no direct correlation between quality of life and energy consumption. But I think this ethical issue is really important because this technology is so uniquely dangerous in the persistence and the unique hazard that ionising radiation poses to biological systems, to the core blueprint of those systems, the DNA. There is already evidence of a tenfold increase in leukaemia and in breast cancer downwind of the Three Mile Island plant.

A recent study sponsored by the Department of Energy in the United States — not exactly a rabid antinuclear organisation — provides very clear evidence of an increase in childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear power plants under normal operation. Then there is the whole long-term question of the waste and the potential for this material to produce the world’s worst weapons. I think there are really profound ethical issues, and we have absolutely no moral right — that is why I am here as a parent; I feel really strongly about this — to impose such a toxic and dangerous legacy, without being able to say no, on essentially every future human generation.

Miss HOGG — My question is directed to Amit. You mentioned that Victoria, for future reference, needed cheaper power — clean energy. What energy would be the cheapest out of solar, wind, hydro or even nuclear?

Mr GOLDER — In answer to that, the cheapest power we can have is coal — dirty brown coal — and if we were only concerned about price, that is what we would burn, but we do not. That is the point. We have to find a balance between cheap, accessible, guaranteed power, but one that hopefully does not damage the environment as much as coal, because we cannot function without power and it is unreasonable to expect us to take on the radical all-alternative, all-green solutions that other people may have proposed. We do need to balance the two. Nuclear power offers something that is affordable, is guaranteed and lasts for a long time, which means that the power plant itself can recoup the cost of its construction and, because the power is longstanding and guaranteed, the price can be maintained as well.


Miss MUJKIC — I am directing my question to Amit because he is a law student. I am aware of the topic today and the wording of that topic, and I am aware that resources are a state power, but I am also aware that there is a back door for the federal government to take power over nuclear power. In your opinion do you think that nuclear power should be a state or a federal issue? Would it work if, for example, Victoria went nuclear, when an accident or the radiation could affect much more than just our state?

Mr GOLDER — That is an excellent and difficult question. No doubt if I could answer it I would already have a better job than I do. I would suggest that power individually belongs to states, but the commonwealth probably could have capacity to take control of this, either through the massively widened corporations power or the use of tied grants to the states. I do not believe the commonwealth has expressed any intention to do so yet, but if they were crazy serious about it, then perhaps they would through things like tying grants or private nuclear power being a corporation and therefore using that to control it in the same way they were anticipating grabbing the Murray–Darling Basin issues. I would suggest that it should be a state issue. People locally should be able to vote for where their power comes from, and people should be able to assess the benefits we have offered and determine that a little bit more locally.

Miss AH KET — I have a question for the affirmatives here about nuclear waste storage. If we wanted to continue to have nuclear power in Australia for future generations, are we going to run out of space to put it and is this going to be dangerous for the environment and humanity?

Prof. SEVIOR — We certainly will not run out of space, and I do not see any reason why it would be a danger to us or the future. The point is to hand my daughter — I am a parent, too — a civilisation that works. I want to hand her one where she has all the opportunities that she could possibly want, and that is what I am focused on. I think that the nuclear waste issue has been extremely overplayed. It is very dangerous, but we operate with lots of very dangerous scenarios and industrial activities. Your computers use vast amounts of toxic chemicals, and those are safely stored.

Mr McLEMAN — My question is to the affirmatives. I am just wondering why you talk about a baseload as something that we have to meet. Do you not think that part of the problem is that our consumption is not going to be safe for the long term?

Prof. SEVIOR — Over the last year in the course of doing these environmental debates I came across someone named Matthew Wright, who is very interested in replacing Victoria’s coal-fired power stations with wind. He actually has a means of making it all work. Basically to make it all work you have a centralised computer system that connects individual appliances to the amounts of power that is available at any one time, then, as the wind drops, various items in your house get turned off. You would start with, say, your air conditioner, then your TV, then your lights and the last thing that would be turned off would be your fridge. This is the kind of mechanism by which you could make active power demand run by wind work. To me that seems to be an idea that is fraught with danger at all sorts of different levels.

Mr KARP — I am wondering how you can weigh the potential risk of nuclear power generation, whether it is meltdown or potential weapons, against the risk of global warming, which seems much more realistic and much more imminent?

Prof. RUFF — Thank you for that question. That is a really important question. I think we can do both. There is no question that global warming is a very, very serious issue that we need to get very urgent about. That is why I think we need to mobilise all of our resources and get really serious, and very fast, about deploying massive energy efficiency measures that have no downsides and can be done very quickly — energy conservation and a mix of benign renewable energy technologies. Nuclear power is not sustainable. It is going to run out, depending on the rate of usage, some time on the time scale of decades unless we go to as-yet-unproven technology, despite decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, to recycle nuclear fuel using plutonium. That would blow the proliferation, terrorist and accident dangers out of the water. A climate-stressed world, with competition and potential conflict over land, food and water and with more extreme events and displacement of large numbers of people from rising sea levels is the worst possible place for the world’s most dangerous technology in the form of both reactors and weapons potential.

In relation to the terrorist risk: the small nuclear reactor in Sydney’s southern suburbs has been the target of serious terrorist planning on six publicly known occasions since 1983. A climate-stressed world is the most dangerous place for nuclear power and nuclear weapons. We do not want to jump out of the climate-change frying pan into 10 September 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention

25

the nuclear fire. I think we can get very serious about investing in the things that we need to do for a benign and sustainable energy future and at the same time get ourselves out of nuclear technology in as safe a way as possible. It is a real challenge, and it needs all of our efforts.

Miss NEYLAND — This question is for Amit. I would just like to say that uranium, just like fossil fuels, is not renewable; it is going to run out. So if we do embrace nuclear power as an energy source and if we have invested all this money in the infrastructure for managing uranium, and have put less money into renewables, what is going to happen when uranium does run out?

Mr GOLDER — Firstly, in response to that I would point out that it will take a very long time for uranium to run out. We have mined one-thousandth or 1 per cent of one-thousandth — I do not know; I am not good with numbers and things. Basically we have used a tiny amount of uranium. Even if we were to have uranium providing our baseload power, we still would have a long time before it would run out. An assumption in that question was that we have either nuclear or green alternatives, but that is not true. We can use them in concert. We can change people’s patterns of consumption whilst not dropping them below a rate that is comfortable or civil. We can be sure of Victoria’s power for the future while still ensuring it for the even longer term. The idea that technologies improve also supports that. The way that Martin talked about the recycling of uranium that comes out the other end, the way that we have spoken about more efficient uses of uranium — those are the kinds of things that develop over time, with investment and with the experimentation that comes from large use of nuclear power.

So in the long term we have a long time. It does not need to be the only solution but we will get more efficient uses out of it, and if we are serious about the long term, if we want there to be a long term, if we want the sea level to stop rising, if we want those kinds of things to stop, we need to take drastic action on climate change, and that action is to provide power through non or less-emitting means.

The CHAIR — Thank you, Amit. That concludes our first session. Can I thank Sir Gus, Martin and Amit, Tilman and Tom for speaking to you this morning and answering your questions, particularly Martin, who did most of the hard work. Perhaps you can join me in thanking them this morning.


Sitting suspended 11.06 a.m. until 1.34 p.m.

PART B: EXPLORING THE ISSUE

Feedback session

Group 1

Miss KARMIS — We believe nuclear power should be allowed to be an option, and we should not completely rule it out. By exploring and investigating nuclear power we can use it as an option to reduce greenhouse emissions. We might be more accepting of nuclear power if the issue of waste were better addressed. We do not see nuclear power as the answer, but it could be used in conjunction with other renewable sources. We discussed the possibility of alternative energies and the possibility of wind. We considered the transport of power and using the power we have efficiently. We also discussed that there is no guarantee that uranium will be available. The cost of receiving waste — the economic issues include trading, the cost, running out of uranium and building and shutting down plants; the environmental issues we discussed include receiving waste and its effects. Social effects include the ‘not in my backyard’ issue, that waste power usage and our change of lifestyle. We have to consider that we are a democratic society. There would need to be a uniform policy for all states to adhere to with the structure and control. People need to be educated about nuclear power to make an informed decision. There is a strong case for using nuclear power in Victoria. A long-term goal should be to use renewable energy.

Group 2

Miss FORREST — We in group no. 2 believe all our current energies should be put into reducing our energy consumption. We are finally realising that energy is running out, just as our water was running out. We need the same restrictions and the same publicity for the matter. Firstly, the base power load fallacy is introduced because they have night tariffs, so it costs less to run your power at night. Also they keep street lights on all night. This gives us false impressions that tell us we need more energy than we do. We need more media coverage on


how to reduce our energy consumption. We need cheaper low-watt light globes. We need government rebates on solar panels, which currently cost too much for most households to afford. We need carbon taxes for excessive uses, and we need more research done on how to get the most energy from our renewable sources. For example, the solar panels that we currently use only take 45 per cent of solar energy. Until we have achieved these measures nuclear power should not even be considered. We believe we should do research into when exactly our power will run out if we do achieve the goals I have just previously stated. With these goals in mind our power should extend over the next 10 years. When we have this figure nuclear power stations should be built only as a last resort 5 to 10 years before our power will actually run out. We reached this decision due to the fact that risks are posed by nuclear power. We agree that the risks are very small. The only thing is that the consequences of just one of these risks happening — which we agree is very small — are huge. We are talking about major destruction, major cancers, major deaths, major effects on our lives, and a very, very costly clean-up. Building nuclear reactors will include extensive mining of Aboriginal sacred land, and we believe this is a very important issue given the fact they were our original owners. NIMBY — firstly, where do we put the reactors? And, secondly, where do we put the waste? Everybody does not want it in their backyard. Also given the fact that you can hold uranium in your hand it cannot be a renewable resource; it is going to go at some point in time. For these reasons nuclear power should only be used as a very last resort.

Group 3

Miss POLITIS — In our group there were numerous mixed opinions on the topic, but we found that there was a general consensus for the combination approach to nuclear power. There were also those who believed the social, economic and ethical ramifications outweighed the benefits that were involved. However, we came to the eventual conclusion that we all take risks in everyday society and this is one risk we should be prepared to take to protect the ecology of Australia. Regarding a combined approach, we would favour a predominantly renewable source of energy with a portion of nuclear power to fall back on as a baseload. Primarily we believe the main concerns are to reduce CO2 emissions in the immediate future. We hope to invest resources in the exploration of promising renewables such as geothermal and solar and other options to create a reliable source of energy to sustain a stable future for generations to come. To conclude, our group has deliberated and decided that Australia’s future should involve a nuclear option, within the constraints mentioned.

Group 4

Mr GREEN — Our group discussed many different issues about nuclear energy and decided that certain issues have greater importance than others. For example, we decided that the economic impact of nuclear energy is not as important as the social, ethical and environmental ramifications. The key issue we thought was probably the social and ethical one of leaving nuclear waste to lie under the ground for thousands and thousands of years, a span longer than any civilisation has ever lasted. Ethically we find it difficult as a group to justify doing that when people in the future would have to deal with it. We could be seen as making a similar mistake to that made by the pioneers of the coal industry hundreds of years ago, the consequences of which we are having to deal with now — global warming and so on and so forth. We also discussed the issue of the federal government imposing on state government regarding nuclear energy and decided as a group that the state government rather than the federal government should have the power to decide on its own whether nuclear energy is imposed on Victoria. We discussed that it is a contradiction not necessarily of Australian values but of the Australian political system, the Westminster system, for the federal government to impose on state governments. There were many other issues discussed, but in the 13 seconds I have left I am not going to be able to mention them.

Group 5

Mr OAKFORD — As a group we did not have a leader.

Miss LEWIS — Basically we could not come up with a conclusion because we were all really strong and passionate about what we thought. A few were totally against the idea of nuclear, believing it a waste of time and too risky to take the chance. They believe we should use renewable energy. Some of us have a fifty-fifty point of view, believing that in some ways nuclear is very beneficial because there is a possibility it could work. But we were told by Tom that in 100 years we would have to dig them up again. What if they misplace one and cannot find it and if it extends into our environment? Some of us are totally for nuclear, believing it to be beneficial, 100 per cent reliable and a fantastic idea.


Mr OAKFORD — The part of the group that I was in thought it would be a good idea but that we need something to take it over so we do not keep it for the long term, because in the long term it would not be a great idea in my view. About half the group believed that line, so that is where we stood on it. We were kind of just fence-sitters in a way, because we could not decide.

Mr ASSAFIRI — Although most of us were fence-sitters, most of us would agree that we kind of went against nuclear power, only because of the time, money and resources used.

Group 6

Mr GONSALVES — We had many differences and mixed opinions. In one word it was: interesting. We explored all aspects of the energy debate and all the resources that are available to us; we discussed the new technology of silver sails in solar energy, in comparison to that of nuclear. We did not really come to a verdict; we had one person who did not want to say yes to nuclear. We talked about how the population would be affected by a nuclear plant. We also talked about safety, for the people around it and the people who worked for it, and the environment as well. We talked about how other countries can influence us, like China; and how we export coal and uranium to them. The group showed that there were cases both for having nuclear energy, and for not having it. We had a mixed view on whether it was cleaner or not. We also talked about how people have their homes in deserts, where it would be most likely to put a plant. They have a right to have a home and not be subjected to having a nuclear plant in their backyard.

Group 7

Miss LA ROCHE — In our group we had a lot of different views that were put up, but the majority of the group felt that nuclear options should be pursued. If they are to be pursued, it should be started soon; if it is not started soon, then it will not really have much effect because it takes so long for them to actually be built. We should put a lot of research into it so that the technology keeps improving, and that way people can feel safer about what is going on. People should be educated about it, and talk about what sites and what options there are; and give people choices. One of the choices that we thought of was that there should be other sustainable energy options like using wind or solar power. That could be used as a backup because uranium is not a renewable resource and we do not want to be stuck in the same boat in the future, when we do not want the same thing to happen. We should have solar and wind power to fall back on, even though it cannot provide as much energy as nuclear will provide. We talked a lot about safety, and especially terrorism, and that kind of thing. We gathered some different points but we thought that if we were talking about Australia, or Victoria more to the point, we should feel generally safe with each other and if we dispose of the waste in the correct way, and if we do things properly, we should be able to trust each other, and then we should feel safe about what is happening with nuclear and uranium options.

Group 8

Mr DEHGHANI — Our group had a very interesting discussion. There were nine in our group and about eight were with Patrick from Melbourne High. It was like a tennis game: Patrick versus the girls; but it was good to see that everyone had input. We spoke about pretty much everything we could. We did not even have time to prepare a speech because of how many arguments we had. About government control over nuclear power, we decided that state governments should not be overruled by federal government because there would not be an independent opinion. We decided that local governments should have direct power regarding decisions made about nuclear power and that all governments, both state and federal, should come to a fair agreement. The ethical concerns were that the waste from nuclear power would be a major issue. Patrick informed us that there were two types of nuclear waste: low-level waste and high-level waste. He told us that high-level waste can be reprocessed. We got a lot of information through Patrick; he was pretty much the main arguer. Ethical issues may arise regarding the difference in moral perspectives from any individual to the next. That was the main ethical argument that we all agreed on. We did not agree on much excepting that. Six people in the group voted for the motion, three were against, and one was undecided. As Patrick voted for the motion, I think he persuaded most of the group to be on his side. The main thing that came out of our group was that everyone had input, so congratulations Group 8.

Group 9

Mr GOULD — In our group, pretty much everybody was against nuclear energy, except one person, so we had a little bit of debate, but we came to the following conclusion. We believe that nuclear energy is not a very sensible energy source. We believe it is costly, ineffective and in the long run, unsustainable. We discussed the


social, environmental and economic issues and decided we need to spend time and money on renewable energy sources instead of nuclear sources because renewable energy sources have a positive impact on earth. We believe nuclear energy is costly and time-consuming and in the long run nuclear power plants may need to be decommissioned. As we saw in England, this could cost billions of dollars. In conclusion we are 100 per cent against nuclear energy and much prefer renewable, stable and safe power sources.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. That concludes the group reports. The good news is that if you were in a group and were of the minority view, you will get a chance to vote later. We will have a conscience vote later on when you can all vote either for or against the topic.

Before that we have a short time for a soapbox session. That means that anybody who wants to, can get up and give us two minutes on the issues. It is not a question, it is for anyone who would like to make a statement about the topic.

PART C: THE CAMPAIGN CONCLUDES

Soapbox

Mr HEARNE — I am a member of the Liberal Democratic Party and I will be the only one speaking here for a while, I think. I do not think any government agency should have the power to decide on such a difficult matter without the backing of the free market. Furthermore I believe firmly in states’ rights, and I do not believe that we should be pressured by any government agency from the commonwealth. On the subject, 100 years ago there was a man named Tesla, who invented a free source of energy — and soon after he died. Before we look at nuclear power, could we please look back at his doctrine for a second? We might learn from that.

Mr CLEARWATER — I will start by saying that unfortunately you cannot create free energy. I think nuclear power should be an important element of Victoria’s future power generation. I am not saying that we should convert to 100 per cent nuclear tomorrow; I think that renewable sources are very important. We will need to use coal, so we should invest in clean coal technology and natural gas. Otherwise we will be unable to supply the energy that we need to maintain our current standard of living. In saying this, I feel that the current nuclear technologies should be a temporary solution. I say temporary as long-term temporary, 50 to 100 years, until we can develop more advanced technologies such as fusion power, which has all the benefits of nuclear and almost none of the costs. I say it should be a temporary solution but I want to urge that it not be a half-arsed temporary solution.

We must invest, making sure that we build lots of nuclear power plants so that we can take advantage of the economies of scale that we can get from them and we must invest in research and development so that we can develop new technologies such as fast-breeder reactors, waste reprocessing and vitrification, which deal with some of the most pressing issues that nuclear power plants present. Principally we should take this opportunity to become a world leader in energy technology — a powerhouse, if you will. We should take the lead on the world stage and use this opportunity for the betterment of the state, the country and, in theory, the rest of the world.

Mr GREEN — It response to the two rather conservative views we have had so far in this soapbox session, first I would like to address Samuel’s point about the free market backing nuclear energy. Why should the free market have to back nuclear energy before we can go along with it? Power is a state issue, not for the state just as in the nation but it an issue for the state government of Victoria alone. Whether the mining companies are backing it or not, ultimately it is the decision of the government, which is elected by the people.

Secondly, my point overall about nuclear energy, which may be in response to Patrick’s opinion, is that ethically we cannot justify it. It is so irresponsible to leave this incredibly potent nuclear waste under the ground for thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years — I do not really know. The point is that if we get leave it to future generations, future societies and future civilisations, we cannot live with ourselves — probably even less than past generations who have polluted our air and have been a huge contributor to global warning and climate change. How do we get around this issue and still have nuclear power? We cannot. I do not know much about nuclear fusion, which supposedly does not emit waste — I am not sure — but if there are safer, more viable options for nuclear, that is great, but maybe in a few hundred years, when the technology is genuinely safe, generally viable and is actually going to be a bigger positive to society rather than a negative. Also, the implications about nuclear weapons and Australia being a nuclear nation are too great to even comprehend.


Miss WARD — I will be quick. Greenhouse emissions produced in Australia from electricity generation are less than one-third of the total emissions. Our main contributors to greenhouse gases are cars and deforestation. Nuclear power is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, with no benefit for that other two-thirds. This less than one-third of the emissions does not need to be produced by dangerous or costly nuclear power. Solar, wind and geothermal power can achieve this much more safely and cost efficiently in the long run.

Mr WHAN — I just wanted to start off by saying that I agree that nuclear energy would not exist in a free market, so I agree that you would have to have the government run and subsidise it. But I disagree that we should not look at it at all, which I think is what Mr Hearne was trying to say — but I am really not sure what he was trying to say.

Mr Hearne interjected.

Mr WHAN — Neither do the rest of us. From the reports, a lot of arguments I was hearing were that nuclear energy produces nuclear waste which is unsafe. This is not true because we heard speakers before saying that there are safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste by encasing it in copper and then burying it underground. This has absolutely no negative effects on the environment whatsoever. I think that the only way to truly achieve safe power is through using nuclear power as kind of a stepping stone up to renewable energy. At the moment the technology for renewable energy is not good enough so we would need to advance that but in the meantime we cannot simply rely on coal power — we would need to use nuclear energy to get to that stage of renewable energy. That is the only way we can truly achieve clean power.

Mr HOLMES — I would just like to put a quick question out to all of you. If anybody in this room can come up here, speak into this microphone and find me a cleaner and more efficient power source, please let me know because you can totally change my opinion if you do, apart from tests because that is just out of this world.

The CHAIR — This is not a question-and-answer session, so I am not quite sure we can do that.

Mr HANNAN — Can I just clarify that? Were you for nuclear energy?

Mr HOLMES — Yes.

Mr HANNAN — We have discussed this in my group as well. There may be some clean or safer ways to mine uranium, turn it into energy. However, with nuclear energy a lot of it, first of all, even if it is clean it is not renewable. It may be efficient and a good resource by maybe a last resort. If you can build a base made of renewable resources — hydro, wind, however you like — I am not quite sure why you would not. If you can start with that, if you need nuclear energy after that, maybe fair enough. We have a great coal industry as well; that is obviously damaging the environment. If you can use renewable resources, I really cannot see why you would just not use them, then resort to nuclear energy.

Miss MUJKIC — In response to the comment from Mark, he was saying nuclear energy is really clean. We say we have got a lot of uranium, not all of it can be used straightaway. You have to enrich a lot of uranium and that could take CO2 emissions potentially to do that.

I wanted to go on to something that I wanted to say. It has crossed my mind a lot today, and a lot of other people I am sure have considered this, that nuclear power could be inevitable for Australia but to me I realise that labelling something as inevitable is just a way of taking the weight of that decision off your shoulders and a way of escaping the responsibility of that decision. There is a lot, especially an ethical responsibility to us, in regards to nuclear power generation. I feel that if something is worth debating in such a scenario as today’s, it is clearly not inevitable, because subjects worth debating are not that clear-cut. There is an extensive number of renewable energy options that are completely safe, with zero risks, that are definitely worth investigating for the future of our state and our country. In my opinion Australia should not buckle under peer pressure and jump on that nuclear bandwagon. We should become a world leader in not nuclear technology but renewable energy generation, especially because our country is so windswept and so sunburnt and we are an island and we could investigate tidal and hydro power. I think renewable sources are definitely an option for us.

Mr TUNSTALL — I am a big fan of renewable energy. I have been my whole life because as a young child I watched a lot of documentaries on it so I have known a lot about it. But at the price it is now and how far it is to mass produce it to create a mass resource, it is too early now. What we need to do is get some nuclear plants


running to take the strain off the coal plants so there are fewer CO2 emissions going into the skies. While we are doing that we should spend the money we are saving on nuclear energy on renewable resources and building up a network so eventually, once we get about 50 years down the track, we will have stopped as many CO2 emissions going into the air and also have a bank of steady, renewable resources.

Mr WARDHEN — I would like to address a couple of misconceptions. Firstly, with the social and ethical aspect it was continually stated that if we do take up nuclear power, then we would be basically being unfair to future generations. The fact is that nuclear waste is put it in a sealed-off underground area, so it does not have to be dealt with in the future. There is no way future societies will have to deal with it in the short or long-term future. It sits there, cools off, and we slow it down. Also, in terms of private investment, Finnish power plants are completely funded by private investment with some government insurance, so we see that private equity can fund and maintain nuclear power. I would also like to address the idea of the federal government and its control. The fact is that, although state governments should have power in terms of how they handle their own local community, the federal government needs to have power in order to ensure that the greater good is maintained and that relationships and things such as trade between states can be conducted effectively. In this case I do not think that we should be too fussed about limiting the federal government’s power, because we have things like the High Court and the Governor-General to keep a check on the federal government’s power to ensure that they do not abuse it.

Lastly, there has been a bit of talk about nuclear power being unsustainable and a finite resource. Although it is finite, it is way more efficient than things such as coal. Although it may not be abundant, the relative abundance of it is much larger. It is also more cost-effective than things like solar power and wind power. As we heard from Martin, wind power and solar power cannot even establish our baseload power, so we need to rely on such things as nuclear power in order to establish our baseload power and continue in the future.

Mr ASSAFIRI — When we speak about nuclear we automatically think about mutants. We would all love to be X-Men, wouldn’t we, but I do not want a third nipple, so let us not go there!

As Martin said, the inevitability of nuclear leakage or some sort of error would be highly unlikely, but we are not here to talk about the risk factor. We are here to talk about CO2 emissions, and that is why it has been brought up. Basically it is going to create more CO2 to build these power plants, and if we do build them we will be the world leaders in nuclear technology and other countries would want to get on the nuclear bandwagon. In the long run renewable resources are better, because they will effectively create less CO2, and we have already initiated wind, water and geothermal power. I am going to leave you with a rhetorical question: who wants that third nipple?

Mr MOHAMMED — I would like to point out that there is no such thing as clean energy. For example, solar energy may seem clean in production, but using any form of electricity, however it is produced, will cause carbon emissions and thus global warming, so keep that in mind! I would like to clear up some very hazy views. With nuclear energy, the steam coming up from those big towers in nuclear plants — you have all seen them on The Simpsons — is not radioactive; it is all steam, so keep that in mind, too! One more thing: in a nuclear reactor everything is kept safe inside the containment. Anyone who does physics should know that. It is kept in there. Fissile material is inside the contained reactor, which is used to expand and cause heat to produce steam from the water, which moves the turbine and creates energy — just so you know. That is about it. The third nipple!

Mr HOWES — Something was mentioned earlier about responsibility — our responsibility — and that is something I believe very strongly in. As a society we do not have enough knowledge to second-guess or predict what could be happening in the future. I do not believe in nuclear, simply because we do not know what can happen with the waste. We think we do, but we used to think the world was flat. I think it should only ever be used as a very last resort if we simply cannot get renewables, such as solar, thermal, geothermal, wind — anything like that.

Miss McNAMARA — Providing for Victoria’s and Australia’s future needs faces great challenges. At such a critical stage in our country’s development we need to find the most cost-effective, safe and environmentally friendly energy option that can support our growing nation; therefore we need to assess all energy options. It would be detrimental, not to mention irrational, if Victorians were to totally discount nuclear power as an option. We can see today, because there has been such a debate, that there obviously are benefits to nuclear power, even though there are some aspects of it that are not what we are looking for in a power source. Although I believe nuclear power is not the right option for Victorians currently, it would be foolish not to look into every source of energy


available to us. Being informed better equips us for the future and what we will face in the future. Therefore it is in Victorians’ best interests to research, debate and consider nuclear power as with every other source of technology provides us, thus future Victorian power generation plants should include a nuclear option.

Miss POLITIS — I have a quick thing to mention. We are all used to a high standard of living. When we go home, the lights are always on and we have electricity and hot water. We are used to so many luxuries. As much as I firmly believe we should expand our research into renewables, none of them can reliably provide us with a baseload of electricity that Australia requires. As much as we may say geothermal, solar and wind, they all rely on nature, which we unfortunately cannot control. It is out of our hands. The only option is to include a nuclear facet to our energy choices and not rely solely on renewables.

Mr ALLILOMOU — When it comes to nuclear power for Victoria, under no circumstance should we ignore it or rule it out. It would be foolish to do so. We should pursue all the options that are open to us, whether they be geothermal, tidal, wind or nuclear power. There are great benefits to us in pursuing every single cleaner resource that we can. Even if they are not renewable, it is still better than the coal or gas options which we have today which pollute our state and country so much. Furthermore, under no circumstances are we saying that by pursuing nuclear we will ignore the renewable, cleaner sources. It would also be foolish to just pursue nuclear. We must keep our options open so that we can pursue everything that we can, because when you have the largest amount of options you have the largest amount of freedom and more likelihood of succeeding.

The opposition to nuclear power complains that it is not clean. I disagree with that. First of all, in terms of the waste that it produces, as was pointed out before, we are going through research and development that could lead to no waste. When we get to that point I do not know what the opposition will be saying to nuclear power. But even now we have methods to safely store the waste that we produce and methods to take care of it for a long period of time. These crazy theories that in 300 000 years mankind is going to open up some stores of nuclear waste and then the world is going to come to an end are nothing but insanity. It is not possible, it is not likely and I can tell you that we are not going to destroy our future, destroy our environment, on the fear that some day, within 300 000 years, some random person is going to get a mutation from some canister that he opened in some warehouse. It is just ridiculous. All these crazy theories and concerns are just stopping us from advancing and stopping us from creating a cleaner Victoria, a cleaner Australia and a cleaner earth.

Miss NEYLAND — Today we have been hearing a lot about pro-nuclear. The pro-nuclear argument is constantly saying, ‘Yes, there are costs, but the benefits outweigh the costs. Sure, there are going to be all these problems, but the benefits of cheap energy will justify all of this’. I just do not agree. I am starting to think that it is just too much to justify — mining Aboriginal land, the risk of meltdown, the terror threat, the nuclear war threat and, most importantly, the waste management issues. It all seems too much when there are so many other options. Believe it or not, if we as a community really do commit to renewables and we all cut down energy usage — that is the key. Everybody is saying we need to meet our growing energy needs. What about if we shrink our energy needs? What if we actually reduce the demand? That is going to do more good than just developing more ways to create energy that we can just use and then want more. It is a bit of a domino effect. We can reduce our usage and put in renewables and have a bit more faith in them. It seems as if everyone is pretty sceptical, but if they are all combined, and if we invest in all of them separately, the research to develop them further and to help store solar energy and wind energy better, then renewables actually can work. It is scientifically proven. I can see a renewable future if we do not go into nuclear energy today.

Mr SEGAL — A lot of people have been talking about renewables, and we just heard one then. But I believe the point needs to be reinforced that renewables, while they are fantastic — they have been developed for a few years and they can be used for all sorts of applications; for instance, I have solar panels in my home — are not suitable for a baseload power supply. They are not reliable, as one person said before. They are going to be effective for half the day, but during the night solar panels are not going to produce any electricity. The same thing will happen with wind. The more reliable sources such as hydro are under enough pressure as it is and are not going to supplement all our coal-fired power supplies or completely replace them. They are not going to be a one-stop shop to give us all our answers. So perhaps we should look at reducing our baseload, because that is probably the root of the problem that we have here. Should we be looking at adding more power to fulfil our need or just reducing that need so that we do not even have to look at this question? Even in here we have a light on at a spot where nobody is sitting — nobody is reading there. Why should we be wasting so much electricity and yet debating how to create more? But if we cannot reduce electricity usage enough to solve our problems, then nuclear


is a good option to go for. As many people have said already, and as they will say again, it is safe and reliable and it is a really decent answer for our electricity needs in the future.

The CHAIR — Perhaps you could turn the light off on the way back to your seat? Thank you.

Mr POWER — Just to expand on what a girl was saying before, we as a first world Western country are pretty well addicted to power. Can you imagine a world without power? Whereas 150 years ago they were pretty much using no power whatsoever. We scorn individuals and generations of the past century for using up coal resources and oil, yet if we change to nuclear power we will just be using up that. Do we really want future generations to look back and think, ‘Wow, that was a really bad decision!’?

Mr TWOHIG — I am here to point out that we are focusing too much on nuclear power. There is a researcher I think in Melbourne University who apparently found a way to make solar panels almost 30 times more efficient using mirrors inside them, but he did not gain funding because we are not interested enough in renewable sources such as these. At the end of the day, if we do use nuclear power, when it runs out what will be the advantage? If we go into renewables, they will last us forever, or at least until our civilisation collapses. We have to think about future generations and not just ourselves.

Mr VANGELI — I am going to use cars as an example of why nuclear energy should not be an option. When cars were first invented they took the world by storm. They revolutionised the way we live, but now cars and the CO2 gases they emit are the main reason why we are having to cut back on CO2 gases and why we are considering nuclear energy. Cars have emitted a lot of CO2 gases, but when they were first invented everyone loved them. Now we are trying to think of hydro cars, electric cars, cars running on dim sims — who knows! Nuclear energy is looking good now, but what problem will it make in the future. Look what cars have done to us now.

Miss SINGH — I do not think we should exclude nuclear power as an alternative source of energy, but we should remember that we have a duty of care; we have a responsibility. Are you willing to bear the responsibility? Would you be willing to own up to the responsibility of having these nuclear plants and further on having meltdown with all the long-term consequences for our children and grandchildren?

Mr BUCHANAN — The flame of Australia burns bright in the South Pacific. It is a flame symbolising democracy, hope, peace and freedom. This flame is kept alight by energy, the energy we produce from coal. Lest we let this flame dim by entrusting it to a breath of fresh air or a sun-scorched egg. No, ladies and gentlemen, we need to ensure the prosperity and future of this country and the entire South Pacific region, which depends on us, are in the hands of a reliable, cost-effective and green energy source. That energy source is nothing but nuclear. Nuclear can be stored safely. We have not had a Chernobyl — well, in 30 years. Even then 32 people were killed. As horrific as it is, more people die in the coal industry every month. China has at least 10 die each week due to terrible coal-mining practices. In the scale of things it is a rather life-effective way of producing energy. We also have renewable energies. Great as they may seem, the technology just is not there to support this. The technology is here for nuclear. Let us use it, let us not waste any more money, let us stop wasting time, and let us strive forward, let us go forward! We want progress. We want to save this planet from CO2.

Miss MUIR — I am definitely not going to compete with that performance. I live in Glenthompson, which is about 56 kilometres from Hamilton. They are proposing to build a wind farm site in Yambuk, which is about 4 kilometres from where I live. I am against it because of all the noise and stuff, but I would rather have that than the nuclear plant they are proposing to put at Portland. That is only 100 kilometres from me, and if there is a major catastrophe half the people in my region are going to be dead.

Miss BURNS-WILLIAMSON — A lot of people are referring to nuclear energy as the stepping stone between coal and a cleaner way of producing energy, but I think that is a really bad way to look at it. You could hardly call something temporary when the after-effects of which last for tens of thousands of years. I would hate that to be on our future generations. I think that is really sad. Go Greenpeace and all that!

Mr MOBILIO — Some comments were made earlier that nuclear power should be used as a stepping stone to completely renewable sources. I disagree. Nuclear power is a long-term source. It will take many years to develop the technology, apply it to Victoria’s needs, build the stations and pay for them. Victoria should not pursue nuclear power as a short-term source, and we cannot have discussions for many years and come to no conclusion.


Miss LIST — Everyone keeps talking about nuclear. They seem to know a lot, but in comparison I do not think everyone knows about all the other energy sources which are available — for instance, solar, which is one of the cleanest. There are newly developed sliver cells which actually save money. If everyone had them in their houses, the electricity bills would be a lot less than we are paying right now. So we would be saving money; we would be getting back the money, which the government should be putting into solar. It is stupid not to do that when it is obviously cleaner than the nuclear source we are talking about. The sunlight Australia receives in one day is enough to fuel the country for a whole year. I do not see why everyone says we need to do it in conjunction with nuclear. This is clearly enough. Germany is using solar at the moment, and it gets the same amount of sunlight that Tasmania gets in one day. This is ridiculous; we can power our country for a whole year on one day of sunlight. These new sliver cells actually have storage so that when the sun is not shining at night-time we can still use electricity. I do not see where the problem is.

Mr KARP — The first thing I want to raise is that a lot of people have mentioned that we should look into nuclear power now while pursuing the research behind other renewable sources. The problem with that is that to build a nuclear power plant takes 10 years. If we decide to build one now, it will be completed in 10 years. The energy, electricity, cranes, trucks, cars, everything used to build that power plant will only then be balanced out by the power plant’s output and electricity after another 12 or 13 years. That is not a quick solution. If we start doing this now, it is going to take another 20-odd years before we can start balancing and counterweighing the energy it took to build it in the first place. It should be the renewable sources of energy we look at now, and then if that is not enough to sustain our baseload limit — although I noticed everyone has pointed out that they do not think renewable sources of energy will be enough to support baseload limit, I believe it was Tom, the second speaker for the negative, who pointed out many fallacies in that argument, and that they can. I was uneducated on the topic prior to that, and I am not too sure, but Tom mentioned many points where baseload limits can be sustained by renewable sources of energy — for example, wind turbines, geothermal, solar or whatever it may be.

These are the options we are going to be looking into now, and then if they are not enough to sustain our baseload limits or if they are increasing for whatever reason — although they should not be — nuclear should be a last resort. I am not really willing to make decisions now that will take 20 years to come into practice and the ramifications of which will last another quarter of a million years.

Mr GOULD — I would like to point out that right now we are in this really brightly lit room and right now coal is being burnt. If we were to choose nuclear energy, it would take 30-odd years before that energy were functional, so I do not see why we are thinking about nuclear energy when it takes that long and when the damage is being done right now in this room.

The CHAIR — Just to clarify Parliament’s point of view, I point out that 50 per cent of the energy bought by Parliament is green power, so it is not all coal energy. You might notice that half of the lights are turned off, because the members said it was too bright when they were all turned on.

PART D: THE VOTE

Division

The CHAIR — Now you will all get the chance to give your vote in relation to today’s topic that ‘Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option’. We will do this by division, which is the way the house would vote if it were a conscience vote. Voting is done this way all the time in the upper house — the Legislative Council — but in the Assembly most votes are on party lines. We have party votes, and a representative of each party delivers the total numbers for that party. I will explain the process to you and I will then call for a division. Those who support the question, being those who believe that future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy option, I will ask to sit on my right, and those who oppose that question should sit on my left. When you are all seated I will call two tellers for each side, and it will be their job to count the votes.

The result of the division is Ayes, 27, Noes, 66, so the vote of the convention is against the question.

PART E: CONCLUSION

Official closing


Mr DIXON (Shadow Minister for Education) — Thank you, everybody. It is good to be here. When I was listening to the young people who attended the national convention describing life as a politician in Canberra, I thought a right of reply would be in order. I can guarantee you that members of Parliament do not come to blows. We get on with each other; your Chair, Judy Maddigan, and I are quite good friends. Judy was the Speaker of the house, and a very fair Speaker at that, so we all respect each other. And we pay for our meals — I must let you know that bit!

Firstly, I am here because the usual procedure is that somebody from the government opens the convention, and somebody from the opposition closes it, and I am here representing Ted Baillieu, the Leader of the Opposition, but also as I am the shadow Minister for Education I think it is fairly appropriate for me to be here. I am the member for Nepean. My electorate is at the bottom of the Mornington Peninsula. My office is in Rosebud and I live in Rye, so if you like golf courses, wineries and hot spas it is a nice place to live. There are lots of tourists down there and a huge amount of retired people, so you have got to watch out on the roads — they have very interesting driving habits. It is an interesting contrast as an electorate, because as everyone goes down there for a holiday, people think about Portsea, mansions and what have you. Many people who holiday down there have lots of money, but the people who live down there are mainly pensioners. My electorate has the highest proportion of people on seniors’ pensions than any other electorate. There is not a lot of money in my electorate, but there is a perception that the electorate is very well off. It is an interesting place to represent and it is never ever dull.

It is interesting, too, that the two biggest issues in my electorate are to do with the environment. You would think that with the age group down there that perhaps health, public transport or law and order might be big issues. They all have their moments but the biggest issues in my electorate are to do with the environment. There have been two specific issues. One is the channel deepening. You are probably aware of the channel deepening, which is happening largely off the shores of my electorate. So people in my electorate are very, very concerned about and very vocal about that. The other big issue is that about half of Melbourne’s treated sewage is disposed of at sea through the Gunnamatta sewage outfall. Again, that is a massive issue for the local people down there. Obviously it is a very relevant issue when we talk about water. Those two issues are by far the biggest in my electorate.

As I said, I am the shadow Minister for Education. My background actually is in education. I was a school principal for about 15 years and was also a teacher. It is great to have portfolio responsibility for something that I have a fair bit of experience in and certainly a deep love of, so I really am enjoying this portfolio. Today is interesting, too, because I have a youth council running in my electorate, which has three secondary colleges. A couple of times a year a few students from each of those colleges meet with me over lunch in my office. We talk about local issues and I drill them about what is happening.

Recently we had a really good discussion about binge drinking because it was in our local papers and in the daily papers. We had a really good talk about what is happening on the peninsula — what is happening at parties, how freely available alcohol is, and what are the students’ attitudes to alcohol. We had an incredible discussion. Also a review of public transport is happening in my electorate, so my youth council made a submission to that review from the young people’s point of view. Today the members of my youth council are having a tour of Parliament House with me. In fact a few of them got onto TV. This morning I had to do some TV interviews. I got word of that only on the way up, so they were there in the background and were filmed. It was a bit of an added bonus for them that they might see themselves on TV tonight.

The reason that you are here and the reason that I have a youth council is that it is very, very important that young people’s voices are heard. It does not matter that you cannot vote. It is very important that all members of Parliament and the community are reminded that just because you cannot vote does not mean you are irrelevant in the political process, because the decisions we make in here affect you. We have to be aware of that and constantly reminded of that. Any organisation, whether it is this convention, the youth council I have or the Youth Parliament that is happening in the school holidays, it is very important that the decision-makers of this state are kept alert and mindful of what young people think about all sorts of issues and how things are affecting them. We tend to get blinkered as we get older. My youngest is now 19, so I have no family member in their teens. To keep my focus and that of my colleagues on young people, it is very important that these sorts of occasions occur.

This is a constitutional convention. Whether you belong to a sporting club, a social club, a state or country, they all have a constitution. Constitutions are very important because they contain the basic ground rules. In most cases a lot of wisdom, thought and experience have gone into them and the rules in a constitution are meant to last a long while. When you think about our state’s and country’s constitutions, a lot of thought by our forefathers went into


those. A lot of the meetings regarding the future Australian constitution before Federation actually took place here in Melbourne and in the parliamentary precinct, so this is a very historic place as far as our country’s constitution is concerned.

When you think about how the world has changed since our country’s constitution was written, you realise that it has changed incredibly, but our constitution has really served us quite well. Occasionally we really do need to have another look at our constitution. You guys have done it here today in what you have been discussing. On probably the broadest issue, one of the most important structures of our constitution is the fact that it provides for federal and state governments but also local government, so that we have three levels of government.

People argue about that and say that there are too many politicians and that we should have fewer. They say that we should change the constitution and that there should be just the federal government and super councils, with no state government. That would mean that Judy and I would be without jobs. We might be amenable to that — I do not know — depending on what the conditions are. But other people say it is good to have three levels of government because it means the government is closer to the people and the people who represent the voters are more accountable and you can get to them more easily, you can speak to them and be aware of their views. There are views on both sides.

We are going through a really interesting debate at the moment about what is the federal government’s role and what is the state government’s role. More and more those lines are blurring. In previous years it was quite obvious what was a federal government responsibility and what was a state government responsibility and what was local government responsibility but those lines are blurring for all sorts of reasons, for political reasons and just for growth reasons. Our country is changing, our society is changing and our world is changing. There are aspects of our constitution that I think need modernising and just a review — we might not change them but we need to look at them. I think the powers of the federal government and the powers of the state government, especially in areas of education and health, are something where we are going through a very interesting process.

You have debated your issue today and voted on the question. It was interesting to see which way the vote went. I was not surprised after hearing some of the debate that I had heard during the day and just my understanding of what young people are thinking, but what a fascinating thing you are talking about. It is something that is really very real to Victoria. With climate change — that is the broader issue — but within Victoria we have one of the largest brown coal deposits in the world. Can you just stop that, and what are the implications of that? You have got all sorts of renewable energy sources out there that are subsidised or not subsidised or developed or undeveloped. There is a whole new way and we really need to be looking at all these alternatives. You have looked at nuclear energy today. Again, we have to have reasonable debate about these sorts of things. It is very easy to be emotional about these sorts of things but we have got to be able to deal in facts and figures. That is what you guys have done with your research and you have all come to a conclusion.

Those of you who were on the winning side of the vote, that is great, your thoughts have prevailed. Those of you who were on the losing side of the debate, that does not matter. The fact is you have had a red-hot go, you have done the research and you have had a point of view and you have put it across. You did not get your point of view across but that is the way the world works. That is the way politics works. I am a member of the opposition. The government always wins the votes in this place because that is what governments are for, but that does not mean the opposition should not be getting up there and making their views known and putting that view across. That is a healthy democracy and that is the process you have actually gone through.

I would just like to finish just by saying that whether we are in government or opposition we come into this place and we debate legislation. Even though we know that if it comes to a vote — and I must remind you too that not all votes come to a vote. On most occasions the opposition says to the government. ‘We agree with you’, or ‘We might disagree with what you are doing but you were elected and we will not oppose that legislation’. It is probably only, I do not know, say, 15 per cent of legislation that goes through this place where we actually vote, where the opposition will say, ‘No, we want a vote on this’. We know we will lose because we are the opposition not the government but we want to make a stand on this. Across a sitting week, across a sitting term, that would be the general layout of the vote. We only really take it to a vote on about 15 per cent of occasions.

The CHAIR — Five per cent.

Mr DIXON — Only 5 per cent? Only 5 per cent of legislation in this place actually goes to a vote. We actually do get on with each other and we work together in here fairly well. But in the lead-up to a debate, even 10 September 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention

36

though we known the foregone conclusion of what is going to happen to that legislation, we do a lot of work in the background, like you have done. We talk to interested groups, we do our research, we talk amongst ourselves, we come to a consensus and we put that argument across. That is what you have done and that is what we do. It is a great training ground, what you have done, in leading up to the political process. I thank you all individually for the great work that you have done today and the spirit in which you have been involved today. Thank you very much to all of the organisers of the convention; you have done a fantastic job and I hope you continue to do that. Thank you very much to all the schools and the staff involved, because usually this is something extra that has to be done on top of a very heavy teaching load. I take my hat off to all the teachers involved. Once again, thank you. I officially close the convention.


The CHAIR — Having collected the evaluations, we will now close the afternoon’s activities. Having chaired today’s convention, can I say what a very enjoyable experience it has been and how impressed I have been by many of the questions you have asked and comments you have made. I think it shows that a number of you have a great passion for the subject you have been talking about. Of course if you have a passion to change the world, you need to get elected to Parliament, so I suggest you all think about the possibility of being a politician or a parliamentarian as a future career.

Well done, all of you. I hope a lot of you will apply for the national conference, because it sounds as though the people who went this year had a great time. It is a great opportunity to once again discuss issues that will be important to your future as well as to the community today. I thank all of you for attending, and your teachers. I also thank Gary Shaw, Sonya Velo, Rod Espie and all the other people who helped organise the day.


The CHAIR — Have a great rest of the school year!

Convention adjourned 3.03 p.m.


VICTORIAN SCHOOLS’ STATEVICTORIAN SCHOOLS’ STATECONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONCONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Future Victorian power generation plansFuture Victorian power generation plans

should include a nuclear energy optionshould include a nuclear energy option

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Monday, 10 September 2007

A collaborative project of: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Association of Independent Schools of Victoria Catholic Education Office, Melbourne Australian Electoral Commission Parliament of Victoria


PROGRAM

8.30–8.50 Registration

A registration desk will be set up in Queen’s Hall. Please be ready at 8.50 am to move into the Legislative Assembly.

9:00 Welcome and Introduction: Judy Maddigan, MLAJudy Maddigan, MLA State Member for Essendon and State Member for Essendon and Chair, Drugs and Crime Chair, Drugs and Crime Prevention CommitteePrevention Committee

Mr Steven Herbert, MLA Mr Steven Herbert, MLA (Parliamentary Secretary for Education)(Parliamentary Secretary for Education)

PART A: INTRODUCING THE ISSUE

Future Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclearFuture Victorian power generation plans should include a nuclear energy optionenergy option

9.209.20 Introductory speaker: Introductory speaker: Sir Gustav Nossal, Professor Emeritus (PathoSir Gustav Nossal, Professor Emeritus (Patho--logy), logy), The University of MelbourneThe University of Melbourne

The purpose of this introduction is to provide you with an overview of the key issues and considerations you need to keep in mind when listening to the speakers and later when working in your discussion groups. If you keep these ideas and the ideas you gained from your pre-Convention reading in mind, it will help you sort out the facts from the opinions when you listen to today’s speakers and decide upon a personal position on this issue.

9.35 The Campaign: The following speakers will each address the Convention for 5–7 minutes each. A strict time limit will be enforced by the Chairperson.

For:For: Martin SeviorMartin Sevior, Associate Professor (Experimental , Associate Professor (Experimental Particle Physics), The University of MelbourneParticle Physics), The University of Melbourne

Against:Against: Tilman A. RuffTilman A. Ruff, Associate Professor, Associate ProfessorNossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne Nossal Institute for Global Health, The University of Melbourne

For:For: Amit GolderAmit Golder, Arts/Law student, Arts/Law student

Monash University Debating SocietyMonash University Debating Society

Against: Against: Tom O’ConnorTom O’Connor, Victorian Director, Victorian Director

The Oaktree Foundation, and 2007 Young Victorian of the YearThe Oaktree Foundation, and 2007 Young Victorian of the Year


Each speaker will present his/her position, and explain why they hold their particular views about the issue. They will be doing everything they can in their 7 minutes to convince you of their viewpoint. After these speeches you will have the opportunity to:

ask questions of any of the speakers ask questions to clarify something you didn’t understand challenge what any of the speakers said.You should address your question to ONE of the speakers who will have only one minute in which to answer your question. This will allow more student delegates to ask questions.

11.00–11.25 Morning tea in Queen’s Hall

PART B: EXPLORING THE ISSUE

11.25 Organisation of student discussion groups

A list of student groups and where each group meets will be provided in your folder. Some of you will be identified as group leaders, others as recorders. The group leader’s role is to help you reach decisions about each question for discussion and to make sure everyone who wants to speak has a chance to have a say.

The recorder will write down the group’s agreed position about each question. In some cases this might be ‘All agreed’ or ‘All disagreed’. In other cases you might record a split decision. You should also list the reasons why you agreed and/or disagreed with the question. The recorder will report back to the full group before lunch. The recorder must make sure she/he gives the group’s response sheet to a Committee member after the presentation so that your group’s ideas can be included in the final communiqué.

11.30 Student discussion groups

12.35 Student briefing in Queen’s Hall

12.40 Lunch: Students to bring or buy lunch.

Please return to the Legislative Assembly to start the afternoon session promptly at 1.30 pm.

1.30 Feedback session in Legislative Assembly

Groups report back to the Convention. Each group will have a maximum of two minutes to report back. Make sure the main ideas are presented, especially if they are different from the others. Try not to repeat responses.


PART C: THE CAMPAIGN CONCLUDES

2.00 Soap-Box Session

This is your final opportunity before the vote to try and convince your fellow delegates of your views about the issue. You will have a maximum speaking time of two minutes. If you exceed the time, the Chairperson will ask you to stop. If there are too many delegates wanting to speak the time could be reduced to one minute or less.

PART D: THE VOTE

2.30 This section will be conducted by Rod Espie, Education and Community Engagement Officer, Parliament of Victoria.

PART E: CONCLUSION

2.40 2007 National Convention

Jaspreet Singh from Taylors Lakes Secondary College and Mark Holmes from Lalor Secondary College will talk about their experiences at the National Convention in Canberra in March 2007. If you are a successful applicant, you will be invited to attend the 2008 National Constitutional Convention in Canberra. All travel, meals and accommodation will be paid for your three-day participation at this Convention.

2.45 Official closing

Martin Dixon, MLA, Opposition Spokesperson for Education

2.55 Complete evaluations (see form is in your folder)

3:00 Judy Maddigan closes the 2007 Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention.


Victorian Schools’ State Constitutional Convention: Guiding Questions — Summary of feedback from Group Discussions Key economic, environmental and social issues

Economic Impact on trade and economy. Depletion of uranium and decommissioning of nuclear plants is expensive,

ineffective and not sustainable. Implications for Australia’s coal industry.

Environmental Resulting waste and its effects. Impact on climate, storage, meltdown. Focus on renewable energy sources for positive impact on the earth. Explore geo-thermal and solar power. Impact of radiation; threat of nuclear destruction, mutations.

Social Storage of waste — ‘not in my backyard’ view. Incidence of human error. Waste, power usage and changing lifestyles. Terrorism, community safety. Risk of building on sacred Aboriginal land. Moral implications – effect on future generations.

Concerns and pressing issues Terrorism, cost and dangers of nuclear power. Proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years! Effects on global warming and future generations.

Options Governments could consider harnessing current options/solutions. Invest in a mix of renewables – or nuclear, if necessary. Initially reduce current energy consumption, using rebates on solar panels, low

wattage light bulbs, etc; investigate greater use of solar energy before turning to nuclear power option.

Sell uranium to fund ‘green’ options. Use coal until another renewable energy source becomes available. Invest money on new technologies (e.g. sliver cells solar energy panels). All available options to use clean energy should be exerted. Build power stations only as a very last resort. Further research, planning, regulations, back-up plans required.

Federal Government authority Federal government should not have right to overrule, considering our democratic status. Federal and State governments should cooperate for a viable solution. Introduce uniform policy for all states, with structure and control. Need community education programs for informed-decision making.

Arguments FOR nuclear energy Long-term goal: renewable energy; reduction in greenhouse emissions. Can be used in conjunction with other renewable sources. Reliable base load from nuclear energy, and does not emit CO2.


It would (could) be an immediate solution. Nuclear energy OK if waste stored properly.

Arguments AGAINST nuclear energy It is disruptive; supposedly cheaper. Will affect future generations. Renewable options could be used forever; uranium will run out. Waste issues will pose major problems. Proliferation of nuclear weapons needs to be considered. Money will be wasted. Should be a law to put renewable energy sources in place. Nuclear waste lasts thousands of years. Nuclear causes meltdown which will affect everyone.

Other comments/considerations Australia sells uranium. Nuclear power could be a temporary source of power to crease CO2 emissions,

switching to clean power later. Government cares about economy. Taking risks is a part of life. Coal stations are constantly polluting the atmosphere. Renewable energy is an economic strain. Government won’t admit that climate change is happening, so if they are willing to

embrace nuclear we should take whatever (steps) we can to stop global warming. Nuclear energy is not ideal, but is the only option government seems willing to con-

sider. Use geo-thermal (temporary solution) base load — semi renewable. Invest into a mix of renewables or nuclear, if necessary. Not everybody agreed – generally renewable, but nuclear can provide base load,

but not as a whole.

EVALUATIONEVALUATION

Besides anecdotal comments from participants, student comments in the formal evaluation form included:

Whole day beneficial. Thankful for opportunity to hear opinions of other students and qualified people and to experience sitting in Parliament House. Set-up was great; surroundings and people interesting and very educational. All speakers presented themselves well. The hotel was excellent. Enjoyed every part. Great day — really informative; great experience; an eventful day. Enjoyed it so much; learnt a lot. Was an experience of a lifetime. It was very in-

formative and I am pleased to have attended. Accommodation for rural students was great. Fantastic experience, thanks. Unexpectedly enjoyable day. Was an experience of a lifetime. Topic was excellent; such a great opportunity. Good opportunity to witness the fusion of alternative views. Interesting day! I became aware of a topic which has great importance to our soci-

ety and was able to form my own opinion. Today was GREAT! Really good. Hope to be in for next year. Good organisation and resources. Great to meet other people who are passionate about issues affecting us. Speakers were very informative and helped clarify this complex topic for me.

Group discussions were also helpful.


An aggregation of the 87 student responses under ‘Excellent’ and ‘Very Good’ provided the following results:

89.3% for ‘Administration’ 85.5% for ‘Presentations’ 96% for ‘Delegate Involvement’

representing an 88% overall success rate.

Comments and suggestions for improvement included: Provide more time for soap-box session, questions to debaters and small groups. Provide additional pre-reading material. Introduce topics relevant to teenagers of today. Suggested topics: drugs, alcohol,

abortion. Great way for under-18’s to talk about political issues. Ensure more equitable distribution of students (too many students from one school

represented in small group discussions) Have more mikes working in the Legislative Assembly. Reorganise group discussions — a structure may be necessary. Some presentations were too long. Have more speakers on each side of the debate. Invite more politicians, and perhaps even the Premier? Suggest two-day program with a variation of activities — private/smaller chats with

politicians/debaters. Invite someone from the ‘Greens’. Lunch for all delegates would be appreciated.


Documents

Schools’ State Constitutional Convention: 10 September 2007€¦ · Web viewState Constitutional Convention. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 10 September 2007 Victorian School’s