Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (15:16): I rise to speak on the motion of Senator Ludlam, and of course it behoves me to refute most of the issues which Senator Ludlam has raised. I understand that Senator Ludlam is ideologically opposed to this industry. It is what his brand is built on. It is what his trademark is. And his very small percentage of followers in the world who subscribe to his beatnik politics would subscribe to it. I do not know where you have been locked into, Senator Ludlam, but there is no higher inquiring authority in this land than a royal commission. To completely denigrate the findings of a royal commission, with the resources it has, in the way you have in the 12 minutes that I heard you speak is somewhat abusing the whole way in which our democracy and this government are run. You tell me a higher authority than a royal commission. I would be very interested. Senator Brandis: The parliament. Senator EDWARDS: There is the parliament. You can come to the parliament and you can debate this, which you are. I will put what I know on the record. The suggestion and your inflammatory language, which is flowery and purposeful, about 'putting waste in a car park out the back of South Australia' just put your intellectual rigour which you have applied to this in perspective. You have not applied it. Have you actually read—and I would love an indication; I will take your interjection—my submission to the royal commission from cover to cover? Senator Ludlam: Yes, you provided me a copy not that long ago. Senator EDWARDS: Yes. Have you read it, Senator? Senator Ludlam: No, not cover to cover. Senator EDWARDS: So you have not read it. Through you, Deputy President, I would inquire whether Senator Ludlam read the full findings of the royal commission before his contribution today. Senator Ludlam: I've read their summaries that they provided. Senator EDWARDS: Oh, you have read the summary. I have read every word of the royal commission preliminary findings, and I found them to be quite encouraging. What we have now is a report on the table. Senator Ludlam and his assertions—the Greens political party can make a submission to the royal commission and put their contentions, and they can refute the facts of that royal commission that they believe are non-factual. They can tear down the findings of the royal commission, like Senator Ludlam has attempted to do in this chamber today. He can do his own economic modelling. Senator Ludlam can do his. I have done mine. Mine also is vindicated by the findings of the royal commission. I had my paper peer reviewed around the world by a dozen different groups, scientific and economic. I am wondering whether Senator Ludlam has brought the same intellectual rigour to his submission here today in this chamber. I suspect not. I suspect the royal commission have also had their findings tested by eminent scientists and by people who have a background in economics, unlike what he has here today. Also, there is this whole sense of fearmongering that goes with the contribution that was made by Senator Ludlam, whose trademark is opposing any progression in this area. He is now conflating the issues of low-level medical waste—medical waste which will come about as a result of one in two people in this country having an interaction with oncology services in this country. What we are doing by pulling these two together is subscribing to the Greens' fear and loathing of this whole policy position, which I suspect that in their heart of hearts they do not really believe, but they are so entrenched in this policy now that they cannot step away from it. They are so entrenched in it that they cannot stop it. Even the eight per cent of people who might vote for them around this country— Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator EDWARDS: They are just dogmatists in this whole debate. They just cannot move, because they think that if they do they will give up part of their branding. What do we do then with all of the nuclear medical waste which is stored in 100 sites around this country? Just leave it in the basements of hospitals, shall we? Shall we not take it into a managed, controlled space where we can responsibly handle this? Your inflammatory language of, 'Oh, we'll put it in a car park out the back of South Australia,' demeans you, and it demeans the mentality of the debate which we are supposed to be having. We are talking about a world-class arrangement, and Australia has been rated No. 1 in terms of regulation and governance of its nuclear facility. You heard that yourself, Senator Ludlam, at the last estimates. We are No. 1—ANSTO, our facility; in regulation; and the way in which we operate our nuclear science technology. That is no mean feat. I want to let anybody listening to this contribution know that, of the G20 countries, Australia is only one of two that are not nuclear nations—us and Italy, and Italy will be going down that path very soon. Senator Ludlam: No, they got out. They closed theirs down. Senator EDWARDS: And now they are buying coal fired power. You failed to embrace the imperative in this. You claim to stand for zero carbon emissions. I ask the Greens political party: what is the only power source that will provide baseload energy to this country at an internationally competitive rate? There is only one answer, and it is nuclear power generation. I repeat: zero carbon emissions and the only thing that will provide the baseload energy. My home state of South Australia has the third highest power costs in the world. We are trying to invigorate that state. How on earth can we do that when we are competing with other countries that are nuclear countries? How are we ever going to be able to contemplate doing that? The royal commission could not have been more unequivocal in leaving the door open. The royal commission was not an entrepreneurial vehicle. That is my job. My job is to provide government with an option to provide nuclear power and to speak to the countries that will become customers of this country. We are geographically placed on an island in a part of the world that is geologically stable and geopolitically stable. That combination, Senator Ludlam, puts us in the best position in the world to take advantage of this most lucrative opportunity. You deny the people of South Australia through your scaremongering, your fear and loathing, your politics of envy or whatever you want to call it. It is scientific bluster because you have not put one bit of evidence on the table that suggests that the royal commission is wrong in saying that the risks are manageable. With the record that we have, Senator Ludlam, you are doing this country a great disservice when you denigrate our science capacity—CSIRO, ANSTO and everything like that. I cannot wait to see the scientists front up at the next budget estimates to take your questions. You are out of your depth. You should spend some time in this place. You should go around the world. You should go into these places. These facilities are pristine in every respect—the way they are governed, the way they are regulated and the way they are operated. But you have not, Senator Ludlam, because you will not. Lucas Heights will accept a visit from any of you at any point in time. What do you have against saving people's lives? What do you want to sustain? There are 100 sites around this country holding medical waste, and all we want to do is put that in a safe container. Senator Ludlam said that we are going to put nuclear waste in canisters that are going to leak. That implies to everybody listening that nuclear waste has leaked. I ask Senator Ludlam to come up with proof that nuclear waste storage around the world has at any time ever leaked. You provide that information to the royal commission. You flesh out your scientific evidence for why your contribution previous to mine is credible in any way, shape or form. It is not. We just heard scaremongering in that contribution. That was the most profoundly irresponsible contribution I have ever heard Senator Ludlam make in this debate. There are no voices of science or of economics that have come out since those royal commission preliminary findings. This has suffered scrutiny all over the world. Everybody in the science world and in the nuclear science world is interested in this. If there were one flaw in the science or one flaw in the economics, don't you think we would have heard about it already? All we have is the Australia Institute, who are employed by the South Australian Conservation Foundation, saying, 'Maybe this was a stitch up from the start.' That was the only voice we had heard until today when we have had this. I encourage every scientist and every person involved in nuclear science that understands the economics of nuclear science and what it can do for this country to take Senator Ludlam's contribution, pick it apart and copy me in on the email of where he has gone wrong, where he is not right and why he should come back into this chamber and address the contentions he has made.