Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure for me to rise tonight to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. I do not think it will come as any surprise to anybody in this chamber that I am wholeheartedly supportive of this bill. I think the measures that are outlined are worth while and they are a requirement in Australia.

A couple of weekends ago the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory had its annual conference. At that conference I was very pleased to support a motion that was put to the conference to assess the viability of uranium enrichment in the Northern Territory. I will read part of that motion:

The Country Liberal Party condemns the NT Branch of the Labor Party for its point blank refusal to examine the viability and economic benefits of a uranium value adding industry.

The Country Liberal Party supports development of industries that add value to raw produce and mining from the Territory.

This Central Council calls for the CLP Policy Committee to undertake research on the costs and benefits to the Northern Territory of establishing a local Uranium enrichment industry to produce power generation grade rods.

The Policy Committee research should look at:

• The local and whole of Territory economic benefits of such an industry
• The type and quantity of waste products of such an industry
• The jobs created by such an industry
• The viability of such an industry
• The potential customers of such a facility
• The process to move the debate forward
• The regulation that could or would be applied to such an industry
• Possible locations for such a facility here in the Territory
• Any security issues in respect to such an industry
• The findings of the Federal Government’s current inquiry and the impact of those on the Territory
• International nuclear non-proliferation considerations
• Any other issues relevant to the debate.

The Policy Committee to report by the first Central Council meeting of 2007.

The Country Liberal Party opposes any and all moves to supply unprocessed uranium ore to any country that is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

The Country Liberal Party reaffirms its opposition to supply of uranium to any country for any reason other than power generation and scientific/medical research.

I think most reasonable people would say that that is a reasonable motion. They are questions that should be answered before committing to such an industry. But I was quite surprised that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory rejected that out of hand. I was also quite surprised to read Labor Senator Trish Crossin in the Northern Territory News saying that ‘Mr Tollner wanted to trash the NT with nuclear waste’. I have also seen a transcript of an interview that the member for Jagajaga did on TopFM in Darwin on 25 August, where she said, speaking about Territorians:

They don’t want the nuclear waste dump that Dave Tollner and John Howard are currently imposing on the Northern Territory. And they certainly don’t want any more that might come out of uranium enrichment or nuclear power.

I find those comments alarmingly ignorant of what enrichment is all about. It is my understanding from information that I have received from the Uranium Information Centre that the process of enrichment does not create nuclear waste—or what is termed or deemed to be nuclear waste. It does produce waste. It produces toxic wastes which are dangerous and have to be managed correctly. Some of the waste is of a very high density, with a specific gravity of around 18.7, and some of this waste is used in keels of yachts and aircraft control surface counterweights. So it is not the sort of stuff that you would typically deem to be nuclear waste. For the deputy opposition leader and Senator Crossin to run around scaremongering on that issue I think just highlights their lack of information and credibility.

I have been listening carefully to this debate and I have noted that speaker after speaker on the other side has jumped up and accused me of all sorts of misinformation in the past on this issue. Just to clarify the record, in relation to the storage of nuclear waste in Australia, the national nuclear waste repository, it has always been my view that this country needs to store its nuclear waste in a particularly safe and secure manner. The best way of doing that is to have one single national nuclear waste repository. That was always considered to be the right thing to do.

Even the previous Labor government held the view that waste should be stored in a single national nuclear waste repository. To that end, the previous Prime Minister, Paul Keating, worked to find a suitable location. After much consultation and a lot of scientific research, the most suitable location in Australia was found to be outside of Woomera in South Australia. In readiness for the use of that location, Mr Keating had several thousand drums of waste transported to South Australia for storage at that facility. As we all know, the South Australian Labor government bucked the system. It decided that it would protest and take the matter to court. The Federal Court upheld their right to oppose that facility.

So, in reality, the federal government was left with very few places to store national nuclear waste. In fact, I find the hypocrisy of the Labor states quite amazing. They all say that we need a national nuclear waste facility and that it should be in the safest possible location. But none of them, to a man or a woman, agrees that that location exists in their particular state.

In the lead-up to the last election, there was a lot of debate about where this would go. Our environment minister, Senator Ian Campbell, I believe, shot off his mouth a bit early and said that there would be no waste facility located on mainland Australia. I naively believed him at that time and, as nobody told me anything to the contrary, it was my belief that an offshore location would be found. That did not happen. No place offshore was deemed suitable to take such waste. The federal government had to do something. We had to act in the interests of all Australians, because failing to act would have put pressure on the facility at Lucas Heights and could have meant its closure. That would have had devastating impacts on the health of many Australians who suffer from various cancers and need radioactive medical isotopes in the treatment of those diseases and on a whole range of other wonderful uses for the wonderful products that ANSTO at Lucas Heights produces. (Quorum formed)

Thank you very much, colleagues, for your support. I am pleased that you made it to the chamber so quickly. As I was saying, the Commonwealth was forced into the situation of finding a nuclear waste repository in the safest possible location. You will note the emphasis placed on the word ‘possible’, because it quickly became apparent that none of the states would allow the construction of a national nuclear waste repository in their territory. So the Commonwealth’s choice was really between an offshore location and the Northern Territory; there was nothing else available at all—and, as I said previously, an offshore location was not possible. So the safest possible location where the Commonwealth could possibly act would have to be somewhere in the Northern Territory.

Immediately, the usual scaremongers came out, screamed blue murder and accused the Commonwealth of all sorts of nasties. But what is interesting—and I do not think it has surfaced greatly—is that not so long ago the Northern Territory government commissioned a paper to be written by a fellow called Dr Brad Cassels. That report was entitled Some aspects of a low level radioactive waste repository site selection and was quite lengthy. In that report Dr Cassels identified that 300 to 400 clients in the Northern Territory produced medium- or low-level waste and simply put it into containers with no real checking on how it was stored. We received a lot of feedback from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, saying that all of the Northern Territory’s waste was actually located in the hospital, which was not true. But the Commonwealth had to act, the Commonwealth did act and the Commonwealth will allow the Northern Territory government to store its waste in this repository when it is constructed.

Members here will recall that, when that bill was being debated, I moved amendments which allowed the Northern Territory government to also identify possible sites as well as allow Indigenous land councils the same right. The two major landholders in the Northern Territory would have the ability to identify locations for a particular site. I have to say there was a bit of an outcry amongst sections of the community, but overall the community supported this particular route. I note the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association chairman at the time, John Armstrong, said on ABC radio:

The low level waste that they are talking about, really, the radiation coming out of that low level stuff would amount to significantly less than your very average bedside alarm clock with alumina sands on it.

That’s not an issue at all. And the storage facilities that they put up and build are just so secure that radiation can’t possibly be allowed to penetrate outwards into the local areas.

So we just want to check that that is true, and it shouldn’t have any impact on carrots being grown right next door I would imagine.

There is a man from the cattlemen’s association who did not have many great fears about it.

Of course, I surveyed my electorate quite heavily and found a majority of my constituents did not take great issue with the siting of a repository in the Northern Territory. They understood that it was better to have nuclear waste stored in one single safe location than it was to have it scattered all about the countryside. Additionally, I have a media release here from the Gumatj Association, and its chairman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu. In it he says:

Each year 400,000 Australians, including many Aboriginal people, safely receive radioactive medical treatment for cancer and scans. Of course, radioactive medical waste should be safely stored in one national location rather than left in hospitals and a hundred other places.

I would be happy to consider any offer to safely locate a waste facility on Gumatj land. This could mean sealed roads, infrastructure and other long-term benefits for Aboriginal people.

And in a slap to the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, he said:

This is not about statehood. This is a national interest issue. The Chief Minister must publicly admit that a radioactive waste facility may be safely built in some parts of the Northern Territory.

So there are even Indigenous people in the Territory who support this facility.

I am running out of time, but the last word should go to Ian Duncan, who was quoted in the Australian on 13 October 2005 in an article headed ‘Labor MPs duck for cover on nuclear waste’. It said:

Ian Duncan, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, said state Labor governments could soon be forced to abandon their policies on nuclear waste, or lose office. The expert consultant on radioactive material warned public opinion on nuclear waste storage was becoming increasingly informed, endangering the parties that continue to oppose it.

“The electorate is not stupid,” Dr Duncan said. “To those who advise political parties on this issue, I point out that the electorate is changing and it may not be long before an unthinking party becomes unelectable.”

I think that says it all, and that members opposite should take note. We are not living in an era of fear and loathing, as we used to. People are becoming informed. They understand the benefits that nuclear science can bring. (Time expired)

See this speech in context