Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the second reading debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. It is known that the bill is to allow the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a broader range of sources and circumstances than is currently allowed under the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987.

This bill either clarifies or enables ANSTO to, firstly, deal with radioactive material arising from incidents, including terrorist or criminal acts; secondly, participate in the management of radioactive material and waste in the possession or control of any Commonwealth entity—this includes material designated to be stored at the proposed Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility in the Northern Territory; and, thirdly, deal with the reprocessed spent fuel waste that is due to return to Australia from France and Scotland for storage and/or disposal. ANSTO is already able to receive its own reprocessed waste from overseas. However, under ANSTO’s contractual arrangements, Australian spent fuel may be combined with spent nuclear fuel from other sources and processed in bulk. Thus, technically, returned waste may not be the product of ANSTO reactor fuel exclusively, although it will be of an equivalent quantity.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this proposal is the extension of immunity to contractors in order to limit potential legal action by the Northern Territory government in relation to the siting and operation of a waste dump in the Northern Territory. The extension of immunity would ensure that nuclear waste handled by contractors is considered to be Commonwealth waste under the ANSTO Act.

Whilst not spelt out either in the explanatory memorandum or in the minister’s own speeches, this bill is an attempt to prevent any capacity which may exist for legal challenge to a nuclear waste dump, by removing the possibility of challenging ANSTO’s authority to manage waste generated from non-ANSTO sources. This should be seen as part of the government’s wider agenda to extend and expand nuclear power, which the Prime Minister has occasionally flagged when needing a convenient distraction, I would contend, from his party’s latest troubles. The government refuses to provide any details of its plans for future nuclear power stations and waste dumps in Australia, as to do so would court embarrassing questions in coalition marginal seats. The Australian people will condemn this government for its undemocratic imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory, and Labor will be moving amendments to remove contractor immunity.

As a consequence of this bill, all Commonwealth radioactive waste from across Australia could be taken to Lucas Heights for processing. Lucas Heights already holds a significant quantity of nuclear waste generated by ANSTO, but as it is currently limited to handling only its own waste, this would potentially involve much larger quantities being transported to and held at Lucas Heights. One wonders how the member for Hughes will attempt to justify to the people in her electorate a massive increase in nuclear material resting beside their suburban houses. Labor will be seeking ministerial assurances that Lucas Heights will not become a de facto national waste dump as a result of the provisions of this bill.

It is important to note that this bill is not without its merits. It will bring Australia into line with standards set out in the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Australia has not yet ratified the convention, but these changes are a positive step for the country towards ratification. It gives ANSTO, as an expert agency, the power to assist state and federal authorities in the event of a terrorist attack involving radioactive materials.

ANSTO’s involvement in emergency situations of the sorts that have now occurred across the Western world was not envisaged during the drafting and amendment of the original ANSTO Act. Given ANSTO’s nuclear research and management expertise, it is appropriate that law enforcement, emergency and disaster agencies should be able to access ANSTO’s capabilities and facilities, including during terrorist events using radioactive materials. It is a benefit to the community’s peace of mind that nuclear science and research experts will be able to be involved in national security management and will be able to lend their expertise to the management of nuclear waste in Australia.

The opposition strongly supports the provisions relating to ANSTO’s role in dealing with nuclear terrorism incidents, including controlling and storing radioactive material which may be involved in a dirty bomb. Labor also supports appropriate actions that bring Australia into line with standards set out in the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Of course the extension of ANSTO’s involvement, as the Commonwealth’s primary agency in nuclear waste and security management, is a positive development. Government investment in public sector nuclear research is premised on building and sustaining scientific capabilities and expert management of nuclear materials. The knowledge and expertise of ANSTO should not be limited to its own activities and materials. But Labor condemns the government’s authoritarian attempt to force a waste dump on the Northern Territory. This government cannot even gain community consent to establish a low- or intermediate-level nuclear waste dump, let alone the high-level facility that would be needed should Australia ever establish nuclear power—a possibility squarely in the Prime Minister’s mind, judging by his recent public statements.

There are some positive dimensions to this bill, but there are some alarming concerns for the opposition, and I think for the community, particularly in the Northern Territory. Therefore, the government should reconsider the bill and provide protection to those who may be adversely affected by the consequences of this bill. The government should be open and transparent about the way in which it chooses to make decisions that involve nuclear waste.

See this speech in context