Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. From the outset, I would like to say that I am totally opposed to this bill for the very same reasons that Labor was opposed to the initial bill and subsequent amendment bill from last year. I support the amendment moved in this House by the honourable member for Jagajaga.

As I have said, Labor opposes this bill. Labor will defend the right of the community to be consulted about radioactive waste to be transported through or dumped in their backyard. The primary purpose of the 2005 act was to impose a waste dump on the Northern Territory and to override community concerns and state and territory laws that may get in the way of that. This very heavy-handed approach, including the removal of procedural fairness and judicial review rights, has been extended even further in this amendment bill that we are discussing today. This bill paves the way for this very arrogant government to override any legislation from any state or territory that seeks to prevent the dumping of toxic waste in its area.

This bill can be viewed in the wider scheme of this government’s illogical persistence about taking our nation down the road of nuclear power. They certainly seem to be committed to doing that instead of actually looking at and addressing all of the issues to do with climate change. The fact is that they have refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and they have totally disregarded all of the issues that were apparent in the Stern report. Despite all those warnings, all they keep talking about is the pursuit of nuclear power.

This bill removes judicial review. In effect what it does is to take away the accountability of this government. This bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 to make land nominations non-reviewable under the act. This bill provides that failure to comply with the site nomination rules in the act will not affect the validity of the minister’s approval of a nomination and removes any entitlement to procedural fairness in relation to the nomination of a site. What does this actually mean? It means that no-one will be able to hold the government to account for its actions in selecting a site for a waste dump. Under these bills, there is no recourse available to ordinary Australians and no access to the courts is possible. In effect, this provision will extend the current protection from judicial review applied to ministerial consideration and decision-making on sites onto the processes and decision making of Northern Territory land councils. The government do not want to be held accountable for their actions and decisions; that is why they have made these changes. The reality is that the community will hold this government accountable next year, because this sort of action is typical of the arrogance that we see from the Howard government across so many different areas.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill needs to be viewed in the wider context of this government’s nuclear plan. It is an indication of what the people of Australia can expect in terms of consultation and choice on the nuclear issue. This is what they can expect—no consultation and no choice. This of course does not come as any surprise from this government.

I say to the Howard government on behalf of the people of Richmond and I say about this government’s nuclear plans: no to nuclear and no to the waste, not in our community, not at any time, not anywhere throughout the federal electorate and, indeed, not in any community throughout Australia. Many people in Richmond have raised with me the concerns that they have about this issue. As we have seen again and again, this government does not care about community opinion or consultation and that is clear from this legislation.

Let me say clearly that the economics of nuclear power plainly do not stack up. The reality is that insurers could charge up to $400 million to insure a nuclear power plant against the threat of terrorism. Britain has estimated it will cost $170 billion to clean up its 20 nuclear sites. In the US, direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar combined during the same period totalled only $5.5 billion. The government would have to subsidise 14 per cent of the construction costs and over 20 per cent of the costs of electricity produced for the first 12 years for nuclear energy to be viable.

What has the government had to say about the economic feasibility of nuclear power? Not surprisingly, there have been several contradictory statements. The Treasurer said on 23 May 2006:

At some point I would think that it would become commercial; that’s some time off.

And on 15 May 2006, the Treasurer said:

It is not economic at this time in Australia because we have such proven resources of gas and coal.

On 21 May 2006, the Minister for Finance and Administration said:

I cannot see how nuclear power could possibly be viable in this country for at least 100 years. I think we could waste a lot of time and hot air debating nuclear power, when really it’s just not going to be on the horizon economically for a very long time.

On 23 May 2006, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said:

My assessments of the economics of nuclear power for Australia have not changed—I suspect it would be a long, long way down the track.

On 22 May 2006, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources said:

The economics of nuclear power just simply don’t add up.

So even the government know it is not economically sensible. All those statements from government ministers reaffirm that. The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than that of wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Of all the energy options, there is no doubt that nuclear is the most capital intensive to establish, decommissioning is extremely expensive and the financial burden continues long after the plant is closed. We know that this bill, by establishing toxic waste dumps, is setting the stage for nuclear power in this country. There is no doubt that it will happen, and everyone knows it.

Nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change and it is not a solution to our growing energy needs. It seems only government members continue to say that it is a solution. We have an abundance of free energy sources in Australia. Solar energy and wind energy could be harnessed at little cost to the environment. We have abundant sources of alternative energy. Nuclear power is not necessary. It is not the answer. There are cleaner, greener, cheaper, safer options which should definitely be pursued.

This government plans to impose nuclear waste dumps on unwilling communities. That is what this legislation is all about. We know from this bill some of the areas in which the government wants to put the waste, but the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, Science and Training have refused to talk about specific locations—although I know the science minister has been quite happy to rule out her own electorate. The people of Australia want to know: will there be nuclear waste dumps in areas other than the Northern Territory? Which suburbs or towns will be home to the new nuclear reactors and enrichment plants? What will the government do to make sure local residents and schools are safe if they are to have reactors nearby? What will be done with the nuclear waste? These are questions which Australian communities desperately want answered but the government refuses to answer them.

Given the Prime Minister has not been able to get agreement on the location for low- and medium-level nuclear waste, how does he plan to dispose of or store high-level waste? Of course, he has not been prepared to even attempt to answer any of these questions let alone address the problems of nuclear waste and its transportation and the safety of operations of nuclear facilities. The reality is that the Prime Minister has refused to come clean on the question of where he will put his nuclear power plants and dumps. These are certainly questions that we on this side of the House will continue to ask because this issue is a major concern to people throughout Australia.

The people in Richmond are very concerned and scared. They are scared because the geographical and environmental requirements for a nuclear power plant seem to exist in the Northern Rivers area. The people in Richmond have a right to be concerned because in May this year the Treasurer, who was then Acting Prime Minister—which is probably as close as he is ever going to get—refused to rule out Richmond as a site for nuclear power plants when I put that question to him.

Let me tell this government now, before they get any ideas, that the people of my electorate will not stand for a nuclear power plant in our area. It is quite simple: we will not stand for waste being dumped in or trucked through our communities—under no circumstances. We do not want this waste and we do not want a plant near our schools or our homes. The people do not want the associated risks, the fear or the unsightliness. If the Howard government are so keen on nuclear reactors, perhaps electorates such as Bennelong or Higgins might be better places for reactors than dumping them in areas like Richmond.

Putting aside this government’s persistence with an illogical and dangerous nuclear agenda, one of the most concerning aspects of this legislation is the lack of community consultation. Of great concern is the fact that this government has imposed its will on the Northern Territory. The Central Land Council is opposing the waste dump in the Northern Territory. They are strongly opposed to the Commonwealth radioactive waste management facility being located there. We know from international experience that community consultation is both necessary and desirable. We know that it should be happening. In the case of nuclear waste, the United Kingdom’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management reported on 31 July this year:

There is a growing recognition that it is not ethically acceptable for a society to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling community.

Finland and Sweden are two countries that have achieved site selection on the basis of community consent, through a process of public participation and involvement going well beyond the traditional report and respond approach.

Local communities have a right to know this government’s intentions and what to expect from it, both on nuclear power plants and on the siting of future nuclear waste dumps. But this government refuses to answer questions in relation to these matters, totally removing the issue of community consultation and disregarding the wishes of Australians.

There are many issues surrounding the storage of toxic waste, and they certainly are of grave concern to many people. Let us look at the facts associated with toxic waste. Every nuclear reactor generates 20 to 30 tonnes of radioactive waste each year. At the moment there are 443 nuclear power plants around the world and 284 research reactors, and 220 ships and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. Britain’s civil and nuclear industries have accumulated 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste around their country. The fact is that more than 250,000 tonnes of waste is already stockpiled around the world and we do not know what to do with that waste because no solution has been put forward to deal with it.

The Department of Education, Science and Training About Radioactive Waste fact sheet of 2005 tells us that the Commonwealth has approximately 3,600 cubic metres of low-level waste and produces about 30 cubic metres of low-level waste per year. The Commonwealth has approximately 400 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in Australia and generates about five cubic metres per year. As a nation, we still do not have a solution for the disposal of our very small quantity of nuclear waste. So what is the government’s reaction?

When government ministers have been asked about nuclear waste storage we have heard them say, ‘Oh, that’ll just be a matter for governments of the day.’ That is a very irresponsible position to take. Is it a problem that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren? Is this the kind of future that we want to leave for them? The reality is that, by doing that, we are just sentencing future generations of Australians to live in a toxic wasteland—again, another irresponsible move by the government in that they are just fobbing it off for future generations to worry about.

What about the logistics of transporting this waste? How will that happen? Even if we are talking about waste from Lucas Heights, how will it be transported to the Northern Territory and which towns and villages will be on the route? Which schools will the trucks of toxic radioactive waste be travelling past and which homes will line the roads that they will be travelling along? People want to know which regional and rural towns with little access to emergency services required to respond to a toxic spill will be in the firing line, because no-one wants truckloads of toxic waste travelling through their streets on the way to somewhere else and no-one wants it stored in their neighbourhood. There are very real safety concerns here in relation to transportation. In 2004, the New South Wales government instituted an inquiry into the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. The executive summary says:

It is hard to see how the proposal to move waste to remote areas away from the point of production will increase safety as the transportation of the material actually increases the risk from accident or intervention.

The Howard government will be placing our rural and regional communities at risk by transporting this waste. That is the harsh reality.

This government plans to ride roughshod over moves by any state or territory government to protect their people. Despite legislation passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, this government will override the rights and interests of the Northern Territory community. The federal government has deliberately chosen to intervene in the affairs of the Northern Territory and override those rights, and the Territory community has every right to be unhappy about that process. Indeed, the member for Solomon has walked away from promises made to the Northern Territory community prior to both the last federal election and the last Northern Territory election that there would be no such waste facility in the Northern Territory. But it seems that no promises are sacred and no areas are immune from this government’s determination to go nuclear.

If the Northern Territory is the government’s first victim, which state will the federal government choose to override next? If this government is planning to take in waste from other countries, it is going to need a lot of dumps for the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste looking for a home. We know there is growing momentum internationally for countries that process uranium to also accept spent fuel. We know that the government has had enormous difficulty finding a solution for Australia’s low- and intermediate-level waste, let alone taking the world’s high-level waste.

As I have said before many times, those of us on this side of the House stand for renewables, not for reactors. The people in my electorate of Richmond are totally opposed to the reality of having a nuclear reactor in our area. It is a matter of grave concern for us and for our children in the future. The reality is that nuclear power will not deliver solutions; it will just create more problems for our children and grandchildren. As I have said, the economics of nuclear power simply do not stack up at all when you look at the facts. Of all the energy options, nuclear is the most capital intensive to establish, decommissioning is extremely expensive and the financial burden continues long after the plant is closed.

It is absolutely shameful the way the Howard government has failed to address the issues of climate change. We all know the extreme impacts of climate change. We know that we need to have national leadership and national direction on this issue. We all saw and read the stark findings of the Stern report and noted the harsh reality of what will happen to our world if, as a community, some action is not taken in relation to climate change.

On so many occasions we have put it to the Howard government that, first and foremost, it needs to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But the government just runs away from that and is not prepared to take any action, despite the fact that international communities are saying that our government should be doing more and that people right across Australia are saying that the government needs to be taking more action in relation to it. Instead, all we see is the government mocking those who stand here and speak in a very concerned way about climate change. We do not see the government taking any action at all to protect the world as it is today and to protect it for our children and grandchildren. Instead, we just see the government hell-bent on and committed to pursuing the issue of nuclear power. That is always its stock standard response.

That may be what the government is saying, but I know it is certainly not what the people of Richmond, or indeed the people of Australia, are saying. This certainly will be a major issue at next year’s federal election, because people will be making specific decisions about having nuclear reactors in their area. I can assure you that whether it be any of the towns throughout Richmond, such as Tweed Heads, Banora Point, Murwillumbah, Kingscliff, Pottsville, Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads, Byron Bay, Lennox Head or even Nimbin, or other towns, none of them want to have a nuclear reactor in their backyard. So it will be a major part of next year’s campaign, as we see the Howard government hell-bent on pursuing its agenda on nuclear power and failing to fulfil any realistic obligations about climate change and failing to look at renewables. That is the direction we should be taking and that we should be seeing from our national government; instead, we see it running away time and time again.

It is for these reasons that I am totally opposed to this legislation. This issue will increase in intensity. Many months ago I started a petition in my area about not having a nuclear reactor within the federal electorate of Richmond. I received an overwhelming response from people who are concerned that they will eventually have a nuclear reactor in their backyard. Many people continue to sign that petition, because their concerns about this issue are so intense. They constantly see the Howard government going down this path and refusing to rule out where these reactors will go. That is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of leadership. In fact it is mocking the Australian people by not answering the questions on the very serious issues we have in the community about the presence of nuclear reactors. It is certainly an issue that people keep raising with me. (Time expired)

See this speech in context